OK, so, Slacker killed the other thread, therefore, I created this one!
Anyway, we'll just continue conversation here.
As for my fraternity's initiation including aspects of induced fear, nope. I guess i can say this because i'm not going to announce what fraternity i'm in, but ours was much more mysterious/mystical than fearful.
OK, so, Slacker killed the other thread, therefore, I created this one!
Anyway, we'll just continue conversation here.
As for my fraternity's initiation including aspects of induced fear, nope. I guess i can say this because i'm not going to announce what fraternity i'm in, but ours was much more mysterious/mystical than fearful.
It's interesting that you say that it most definitely refers to someone unmarried. In Jewish tradition there would be no reason that an unmarried woman to have lost her virginity, unless she was highly disobedient of the Jewish laws of the Torah. You may now retort that it is highly possible that she was highly disobedient, but I would counter by proposing that if God is real, then he would choose someone who is obedient of his laws and someone who would willingly bring up the messiah in a lawful and loving Jewish home, meaning that the prophecy, if it is God breathed, would allow almah to mean an unmarried young girl, which could therefore also leave the inference that she would be a virgin in order for God to consider her worthy of birthing the messiah. This would leave the inference that the Greek Septuagint used by translating it directly as parthenos as not being an inference necessarily of error.
You mention the free masons and their initiation rites. I'm a member of the Orange Order (it's generally tradition to join from generation to generation of family in Northern Ireland especially, although as I research them, I find parts of it that conflicts with a Christian faith, which is confusing as the Order is supposed to be a Christian organisation) and the third level of the Order (Grand Purple - there are 3 levels) has a Mason influenced initiation ceremony style thing revolving around various tanakh stories. It's quite interesting, but certainly a strange thing that I hadn't expected was a part of it.
Oh, and cheers for ruining the last thread (though it was, as many threads here seem to be very long and actually took a few seconds to load fully).
It's interesting that you say that it most definitely refers to someone unmarried. In Jewish tradition there would be no reason that an unmarried woman to have lost her virginity, unless she was highly disobedient of the Jewish laws of the Torah. You may now retort that it is highly possible that she was highly disobedient, but I would counter by proposing that if God is real, then he would choose someone who is obedient of his laws and someone who would willingly bring up the messiah in a lawful and loving Jewish home, meaning that the prophecy, if it is God breathed, would allow almah to mean an unmarried young girl, which could therefore also leave the inference that she would be a virgin in order for God to consider her worthy of birthing the messiah. This would leave the inference that the Greek Septuagint used by translating it directly as parthenos as not being an inference necessarily of error.
You mention the free masons and their initiation rites. I'm a member of the Orange Order (it's generally tradition to join from generation to generation of family in Northern Ireland especially, although as I research them, I find parts of it that conflicts with a Christian faith, which is confusing as the Order is supposed to be a Christian organisation) and the third level of the Order (Grand Purple - there are 3 levels) has a Mason influenced initiation ceremony style thing revolving around various tanakh stories. It's quite interesting, but certainly a strange thing that I hadn't expected was a part of it.
Oh, and cheers for ruining the last thread (though it was, as many threads here seem to be very long and actually took a few seconds to load fully).
tyronelab wrote on Aug 13th, 2009 at 11:17am : It's interesting that you say that it most definitely refers to someone unmarried. In Jewish tradition there would be no reason that an unmarried woman to have lost her virginity, unless she was highly disobedient of the Jewish laws of the Torah. You may now retort that it is highly possible that she was highly disobedient, but I would counter by proposing that if God is real, then he would choose someone who is obedient of his laws and someone who would willingly bring up the messiah in a lawful and loving Jewish home, meaning that the prophecy, if it is God breathed, would allow almah to mean an unmarried young girl, which could therefore also leave the inference that she would be a virgin in order for God to consider her worthy of birthing the messiah. This would leave the inference that the Greek Septuagint used by translating it directly as parthenos as not being an inference necessarily of error.
Oh I've a better argument than that, it wasn't actualy illegal for a woman to lose her virginity out of wedlock, after all, there were plenty of unmarried prostitutes in the area at that time who perfectly legaly plied their trade, it was only illegel to lose your virginity to someone else once you become betrothed (engaged) because it was a breach of contract. This means that a prostitute could never get married, but there was no law against a girl losing her virginity to her betrothed before they were married.
I'm pretty sure (although not 100% cirtain.) that the Bible itself describes Mary as 'betrothed' rather than 'married' to Joseph when she gave birth to Jesus.
Oh, and thanks for the new thread guys, I'll try to take better care of this one.
tyronelab wrote on Aug 13th, 2009 at 11:17am : It's interesting that you say that it most definitely refers to someone unmarried. In Jewish tradition there would be no reason that an unmarried woman to have lost her virginity, unless she was highly disobedient of the Jewish laws of the Torah. You may now retort that it is highly possible that she was highly disobedient, but I would counter by proposing that if God is real, then he would choose someone who is obedient of his laws and someone who would willingly bring up the messiah in a lawful and loving Jewish home, meaning that the prophecy, if it is God breathed, would allow almah to mean an unmarried young girl, which could therefore also leave the inference that she would be a virgin in order for God to consider her worthy of birthing the messiah. This would leave the inference that the Greek Septuagint used by translating it directly as parthenos as not being an inference necessarily of error.
Oh I've a better argument than that, it wasn't actualy illegal for a woman to lose her virginity out of wedlock, after all, there were plenty of unmarried prostitutes in the area at that time who perfectly legaly plied their trade, it was only illegel to lose your virginity to someone else once you become betrothed (engaged) because it was a breach of contract. This means that a prostitute could never get married, but there was no law against a girl losing her virginity to her betrothed before they were married.
I'm pretty sure (although not 100% cirtain.) that the Bible itself describes Mary as 'betrothed' rather than 'married' to Joseph when she gave birth to Jesus.
Oh, and thanks for the new thread guys, I'll try to take better care of this one.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 14th, 2009 at 9:39am : ^They were betrothed.\
Thanks. So, my point stands. Jesus was born out of wedlock to a teenager. Joseph and Mary were not yet living together as Matthew 1:18 tells us...
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
...and if they weren't living together yet, that means they they had not yet conducted the wedding rite known as the "home taking", which is traditionaly when Jewish couples begin conjugal relations. Some sources like Wikipedia for instance may tell you that this is according to Jewish 'law', but it isn't. Sex before marriage wasn't illegal for women in Jewish law, getting married to someone other than the person you had sex with however was illegal because in a Jewish marriage contract of the time, it is the betrothed/husband's right to take his spouce's virginity, if he has already taken it, then that is deemed as contract fulfilled.
As I said earlier, prostitution was a perfectly legal trade, infact it was only illegal for a woman to become a prostitute if she was married, betrothed, or in any way promised, or the daughter of a priest. So in actual fact, if a young woman wasn't betrothed or promised to anyone and still living with her family, she could still be considered an 'almah' and work as a prostitute to help feed her family. So almah cannot possibly mean 'virgin', which means that the Christian version of Isaiah 7:14 is a false prophecy, which means that the Gospel writers fabricated the fact that Mary was a virgin because of the false prophecy, which means that the Gospel writers were willing to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophecies that he never actualy fulfilled, which makes the Gospels an untrustable source of evidence that Jesus could be the Messiah.
So if Mary wasn't yet living with Joseph, then she was a teenager still under the protection of her family, which is the very definition of the word 'almah'.
But this whole 'travelling to Bethlehem' malarky... it just doesn't ring true. A) A betrothed couple who had not undertaken the 'home taking' wedding rite wouldn't be living together, so why would they be travelling together as if they were a married couple? There would be no need for Mary to be recorded as living with Joseph at the time and therefore no need for a heavily pregnant Mary to make the journey, even if the Journey was required as the Bible says... which it wasn't. B) Traveling during census time was illegal. The Romans definately required everyone to stay at home and 'tend their gardens' so that they could be recorded as living there when the census came to visit. C) There was no need to travel to Bethlehem to take part in a census that would have visited Nazereth anyway.
All of which makes it highly unlikely that 'Jesus of Nazereth' (the name is also a big hint) was born in Bethlehem, and as the Messianic prophecy of Micah 5:2 states;
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
...so to be the Messiah, he would have to be born in Bethlehem rather than Nazereth, which is looking more and more likely as the actual version of events. (And, according to that particular prophecy, he would also have to be 'ruler over Israel' which Jesus never fulfilled either.)
Which again, like the 'virgin birth' makes it look like the Gospel writers were willing to fabricate stories that made it look like Jesus had fulfilled Messianic prophecy which infact he hadn't. Yet this is the foundation that Christianity is built upon, that he was the Messiah because he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 14th, 2009 at 9:39am : And you better take good care of this thread! I expect you to feed it and take it for walks.
And I shall stroke his fur and call him George.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 14th, 2009 at 9:39am : ^They were betrothed.\
Thanks. So, my point stands. Jesus was born out of wedlock to a teenager. Joseph and Mary were not yet living together as Matthew 1:18 tells us...
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
...and if they weren't living together yet, that means they they had not yet conducted the wedding rite known as the "home taking", which is traditionaly when Jewish couples begin conjugal relations. Some sources like Wikipedia for instance may tell you that this is according to Jewish 'law', but it isn't. Sex before marriage wasn't illegal for women in Jewish law, getting married to someone other than the person you had sex with however was illegal because in a Jewish marriage contract of the time, it is the betrothed/husband's right to take his spouce's virginity, if he has already taken it, then that is deemed as contract fulfilled.
As I said earlier, prostitution was a perfectly legal trade, infact it was only illegal for a woman to become a prostitute if she was married, betrothed, or in any way promised, or the daughter of a priest. So in actual fact, if a young woman wasn't betrothed or promised to anyone and still living with her family, she could still be considered an 'almah' and work as a prostitute to help feed her family. So almah cannot possibly mean 'virgin', which means that the Christian version of Isaiah 7:14 is a false prophecy, which means that the Gospel writers fabricated the fact that Mary was a virgin because of the false prophecy, which means that the Gospel writers were willing to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophecies that he never actualy fulfilled, which makes the Gospels an untrustable source of evidence that Jesus could be the Messiah.
So if Mary wasn't yet living with Joseph, then she was a teenager still under the protection of her family, which is the very definition of the word 'almah'.
But this whole 'travelling to Bethlehem' malarky... it just doesn't ring true. A) A betrothed couple who had not undertaken the 'home taking' wedding rite wouldn't be living together, so why would they be travelling together as if they were a married couple? There would be no need for Mary to be recorded as living with Joseph at the time and therefore no need for a heavily pregnant Mary to make the journey, even if the Journey was required as the Bible says... which it wasn't. B) Traveling during census time was illegal. The Romans definately required everyone to stay at home and 'tend their gardens' so that they could be recorded as living there when the census came to visit. C) There was no need to travel to Bethlehem to take part in a census that would have visited Nazereth anyway.
All of which makes it highly unlikely that 'Jesus of Nazereth' (the name is also a big hint) was born in Bethlehem, and as the Messianic prophecy of Micah 5:2 states;
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
...so to be the Messiah, he would have to be born in Bethlehem rather than Nazereth, which is looking more and more likely as the actual version of events. (And, according to that particular prophecy, he would also have to be 'ruler over Israel' which Jesus never fulfilled either.)
Which again, like the 'virgin birth' makes it look like the Gospel writers were willing to fabricate stories that made it look like Jesus had fulfilled Messianic prophecy which infact he hadn't. Yet this is the foundation that Christianity is built upon, that he was the Messiah because he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 14th, 2009 at 9:39am : And you better take good care of this thread! I expect you to feed it and take it for walks.
If anyone would like to take a swing at this one, it would be nice lol i probably won't reply until either late tonight, tomorrow, or monday due to a) packing for college b) friends from college coming to visit and c) THIS IS A FREAKING HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 15th, 2009 at 4:21am : <>And I shall stroke his fur and call him George.
take it easy there Lenny.
If anyone would like to take a swing at this one, it would be nice lol i probably won't reply until either late tonight, tomorrow, or monday due to a) packing for college b) friends from college coming to visit and c) THIS IS A FREAKING HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER
:cheers:
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-15 04:21:15']<>And I shall stroke his fur and call him George. [/QUOTE]
Ok, simply because i have no way to defend the virgin birth at this point and time besides "erm, it happened?" I'll completely ignore that argument for now and skip to this:
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 15th, 2009 at 4:21am : . (And, according to that particular prophecy, he would also have to be 'ruler over Israel' which Jesus never fulfilled either.)
Well, Christians interpret Israel in this verse to refer to the Church...so whether you like it or not Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by becoming the ruler over the Church...
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 15th, 2009 at 4:21am : which makes the Gospels an untrustable source of evidence that Jesus could be the Messiah.
Not true! if the virgin birth didn't actually occur, that only eliminates 3 Gospels, and doesn't even touch the Epistles. Like i said in an earlier post when i was talking about how i sometimes doubt the virgin birth. Mark, the above all oldest Gospel (as far as we know), and the Epistles, which are much older, never say that Jesus was born of a virgin...at all. Which is INCREDIBLY surprising considering the importance that the Virgin birth took on in the early church. this could easily be explained by the fact that Paul, Mark, James, Peter, John, and whoever the heck wrote Hebrews were all Jewish and would have therefore understood the Isaiah prophecy in it's proper context. It's not until the Jewish leaders die-off and the gentile, Greek, leaders who read the Septuagint that has the Isaiah prophecy with "virgin" does the virgin birth even begins to appear in literature.
So...there! Even if the Virgin Birth never occurred, i can still have my Christianity AND my Bible!
i am SUCH a heretic.....
Ok, simply because i have no way to defend the virgin birth at this point and time besides "erm, it happened?" I'll completely ignore that argument for now and skip to this:
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-15 04:21:15'] . (And, according to that particular prophecy, he would also have to be 'ruler over Israel' which Jesus never fulfilled either.)[/QUOTE]
Well, Christians interpret Israel in this verse to refer to the Church...so whether you like it or not Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by becoming the ruler over the Church...
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-15 04:21:15']which makes the Gospels an untrustable source of evidence that Jesus could be the Messiah. [/QUOTE]
Not true! if the virgin birth didn't actually occur, that only eliminates 3 Gospels, and doesn't even touch the Epistles. Like i said in an earlier post when i was talking about how i sometimes doubt the virgin birth. Mark, the above all oldest Gospel (as far as we know), and the Epistles, which are much older, never say that Jesus was born of a virgin...at all. Which is INCREDIBLY surprising considering the importance that the Virgin birth took on in the early church. this could easily be explained by the fact that Paul, Mark, James, Peter, John, and whoever the heck wrote Hebrews were all Jewish and would have therefore understood the Isaiah prophecy in it's proper context. It's not until the Jewish leaders die-off and the gentile, Greek, leaders who read the Septuagint that has the Isaiah prophecy with "virgin" does the virgin birth even begins to appear in literature.
So...there! Even if the Virgin Birth never occurred, i can still have my Christianity AND my Bible!
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 15th, 2009 at 6:57pm : Well, Christians interpret Israel in this verse to refer to the Church...so whether you like it or not Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by becoming the ruler over the Church...
Ahh, interesting, so what you're basicaly saying is that the Christians changed the meaning of the prophecy to suit their own needs and interpreted it in a completely different way so that it would look like Jesus fulfilled yet another prophecy.
Do you know of any other instances where the word 'Israel' refers to the Church of Jesus so that this hypothesis can be corroborated?
Wouldn't it seem more likely that seeing as how 'Micah' is from the 'Hebrew Bible', then if the word 'Israel' referred to any religious denomination, it would actualy be Judaism?
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 15th, 2009 at 6:57pm :
Not true! if the virgin birth didn't actually occur, that only eliminates 3 Gospels, and doesn't even touch the Epistles. Like i said in an earlier post when i was talking about how i sometimes doubt the virgin birth. Mark, the above all oldest Gospel (as far as we know), and the Epistles, which are much older, never say that Jesus was born of a virgin...at all. Which is INCREDIBLY surprising considering the importance that the Virgin birth took on in the early church. this could easily be explained by the fact that Paul, Mark, James, Peter, John, and whoever the heck wrote Hebrews were all Jewish and would have therefore understood the Isaiah prophecy in it's proper context. It's not until the Jewish leaders die-off and the gentile, Greek, leaders who read the Septuagint that has the Isaiah prophecy with "virgin" does the virgin birth even begins to appear in literature.
So...there! Even if the Virgin Birth never occurred, i can still have my Christianity AND my Bible!
Minus three out of the four Gospels.
So let's just have a quick look at the remaining Gospel of Mark shall we?
The final part of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16) which deals with the resurrection is thought to have been quite dramaticaly altered. Verse 8 ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Most scholars, because of linguistic evidence, take 16:8 as the 'original' ending and believe the 'traditional' ending (16:9-20) was written later, sometime during the middle of the second century, by another hand, which is interesting because it is this section that declares eternal life for believers and condemnation for nonbelievers, a central belief to most Christians today.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 15th, 2009 at 6:57pm : Well, Christians interpret Israel in this verse to refer to the Church...so whether you like it or not Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by becoming the ruler over the Church...
Ahh, interesting, so what you're basicaly saying is that the Christians changed the meaning of the prophecy to suit their own needs and interpreted it in a completely different way so that it would look like Jesus fulfilled yet another prophecy.
Do you know of any other instances where the word 'Israel' refers to the Church of Jesus so that this hypothesis can be corroborated?
Wouldn't it seem more likely that seeing as how 'Micah' is from the 'Hebrew Bible', then if the word 'Israel' referred to any religious denomination, it would actualy be Judaism?
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 15th, 2009 at 6:57pm :
Not true! if the virgin birth didn't actually occur, that only eliminates 3 Gospels, and doesn't even touch the Epistles. Like i said in an earlier post when i was talking about how i sometimes doubt the virgin birth. Mark, the above all oldest Gospel (as far as we know), and the Epistles, which are much older, never say that Jesus was born of a virgin...at all. Which is INCREDIBLY surprising considering the importance that the Virgin birth took on in the early church. this could easily be explained by the fact that Paul, Mark, James, Peter, John, and whoever the heck wrote Hebrews were all Jewish and would have therefore understood the Isaiah prophecy in it's proper context. It's not until the Jewish leaders die-off and the gentile, Greek, leaders who read the Septuagint that has the Isaiah prophecy with "virgin" does the virgin birth even begins to appear in literature.
So...there! Even if the Virgin Birth never occurred, i can still have my Christianity AND my Bible!
Minus three out of the four Gospels.
So let's just have a quick look at the remaining Gospel of Mark shall we?
The final part of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16) which deals with the resurrection is thought to have been quite dramaticaly altered. Verse 8 ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Most scholars, because of linguistic evidence, take 16:8 as the 'original' ending and believe the 'traditional' ending (16:9-20) was written later, sometime during the middle of the second century, by another hand, which is interesting because it is this section that declares eternal life for believers and condemnation for nonbelievers, a central belief to most Christians today.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 16th, 2009 at 5:48am : Ahh, interesting, so what you're basicaly saying is that the Christians changed the meaning of the prophecy to suit their own needs and interpreted it in a completely different way so that it would look like Jesus fulfilled yet another prophecy.
Do you know of any other instances where the word 'Israel' refers to the Church of Jesus so that this hypothesis can be corroborated?
Wouldn't it seem more likely that seeing as how 'Micah' is from the 'Hebrew Bible', then if the word 'Israel' referred to any religious denomination, it would actualy be Judaism?
Well, in Christian understanding nothing is changed. I highly doubt that you'll buy this,, but in a lot of Christian interpretation of OT prophecies, Israel comes to mean basically the "people of God," and the Church is seen as kind of the new people of God.
Now your going to most likely respond with, "Well, then why didn't Micah say the 'new Israel' or 'the ruler over the new people of God'" And my again crappy response would be maybe Micah didnt understand what God was saying? Maybe God just revealed that the Messiah would be a ruler, but never explained who He was going to rule over and so Micah assumed Israel? Like i said, you're probably going to completely reject that line of thought, buuuut yea lol it's mine and i'm keeping it.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 16th, 2009 at 5:48am : Minus three out of the four Gospels.
So let's just have a quick look at the remaining Gospel of Mark shall we?
The final part of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16) which deals with the
resurrection is thought to have been quite dramaticaly altered. Verse 8
ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to
anyone, because they were afraid." Most scholars, because of linguistic
evidence, take 16:8 as the 'original' ending and believe the
'traditional' ending (16:9-20) was written later, sometime during the
middle of the second century, by another hand, which is interesting
because it is this section that declares eternal life for believers and
condemnation for nonbelievers, a central belief to most Christians
today.
By the way, i still have John as well. I'm kinda stupid and forgot that he doesn't include the Virgin birth either, which continues to follow my hypothesis that the Jewish leaders of the Church may not have believed in the Virgin Birth themselves.
Anyway, about Mark, well before you reach 16:8 Jesus is claimed to be the Messiah, and He agrees (Mark 9:27-30). But the fact that the promises of eternal life were most likely left out of the original may not matter. The Epistles were written at least 30 years earlier than Mark, possibly even earlier than that, and they all mention over and over again various explanations of how we are saved by Christ's death and Resurrection. Those were the very basic teachings of Christianity, and so people exposed to Christianity would have heard these same same messages over and over and over and over again. Kinda like in today's culture where the idea of "Jesus Saves" is so common place that we now have t-shirts jokingly saying "Jesus Saves" with a picture of Christ diving to prevent someone from making a goal in soccer. However despite knowing what Jesus would/could do for them, the people that Mark (or really any of the Gospels) did not know who Jesus was, and so they needed someone or something to explain to them what made Jesus important to begin with.
So in comes Mark, an incredibly short narrative of the life of Christ that functions to tell people who exactly this guy was. The writer wouldn't have needed to explain the meaning of Jesus' Resurrection because these people would have heard it way too many times already. It is not until later, when a larger audience starts reading the Gospel of Mark that the significance of Jesus Resurrection, and where He went afterward would even need to be included. this idea makes sense because if you look at the Gospels, they progressively become more theologically complex (culminating in John) because, as time wears on, a more complete explanation needs to be included in the text.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-16 05:48:40']Ahh, interesting, so what you're basicaly saying is that the Christians changed the meaning of the prophecy to suit their own needs and interpreted it in a completely different way so that it would look like Jesus fulfilled yet another prophecy.
Do you know of any other instances where the word 'Israel' refers to the Church of Jesus so that this hypothesis can be corroborated?
Wouldn't it seem more likely that seeing as how 'Micah' is from the 'Hebrew Bible', then if the word 'Israel' referred to any religious denomination, it would actualy be Judaism? [/QUOTE]
Well, in Christian understanding nothing is changed. I highly doubt that you'll buy this,, but in a lot of Christian interpretation of OT prophecies, Israel comes to mean basically the "people of God," and the Church is seen as kind of the new people of God.
Now your going to most likely respond with, "Well, then why didn't Micah say the 'new Israel' or 'the ruler over the new people of God'" And my again crappy response would be maybe Micah didnt understand what God was saying? Maybe God just revealed that the Messiah would be a ruler, but never explained who He was going to rule over and so Micah assumed Israel? Like i said, you're probably going to completely reject that line of thought, buuuut yea lol it's mine and i'm keeping it.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-16 05:48:40']Minus three out of the four Gospels.
So let's just have a quick look at the remaining Gospel of Mark shall we?
The final part of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16) which deals with the
resurrection is thought to have been quite dramaticaly altered. Verse 8
ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to
anyone, because they were afraid." Most scholars, because of linguistic
evidence, take 16:8 as the 'original' ending and believe the
'traditional' ending (16:9-20) was written later, sometime during the
middle of the second century, by another hand, which is interesting
because it is this section that declares eternal life for believers and
condemnation for nonbelievers, a central belief to most Christians
today.[/QUOTE]
By the way, i still have John as well. I'm kinda stupid and forgot that he doesn't include the Virgin birth either, which continues to follow my hypothesis that the Jewish leaders of the Church may not have believed in the Virgin Birth themselves.
Anyway, about Mark, well before you reach 16:8 Jesus is claimed to be the Messiah, and He agrees (Mark 9:27-30). But the fact that the promises of eternal life were most likely left out of the original may not matter. The Epistles were written at least 30 years earlier than Mark, possibly even earlier than that, and they all mention over and over again various explanations of how we are saved by Christ's death and Resurrection. Those were the very basic teachings of Christianity, and so people exposed to Christianity would have heard these same same messages over and over and over and over again. Kinda like in today's culture where the idea of "Jesus Saves" is so common place that we now have t-shirts jokingly saying "Jesus Saves" with a picture of Christ diving to prevent someone from making a goal in soccer. However despite knowing what Jesus would/could do for them, the people that Mark (or really any of the Gospels) did not know who Jesus was, and so they needed someone or something to explain to them what made Jesus important to begin with.
So in comes Mark, an incredibly short narrative of the life of Christ that functions to tell people who exactly this guy was. The writer wouldn't have needed to explain the meaning of Jesus' Resurrection because these people would have heard it way too many times already. It is not until later, when a larger audience starts reading the Gospel of Mark that the significance of Jesus Resurrection, and where He went afterward would even need to be included. this idea makes sense because if you look at the Gospels, they progressively become more theologically complex (culminating in John) because, as time wears on, a more complete explanation needs to be included in the text.
Israel probably means something like "God rules". It's original meaning is actualy lost to history, but if we break the word up, we get Is-ra-el. 'El' was the name of the head deity of the pantheon of gods in pre-Judaistic times that seems to have given his name to the monotheistic God, we see his name in the names of the archangels, for instance, Gabri-el means "Man of God", Rapha-el means "God's healing", Uri-el means "Fire of God", ect. 'Is' has connotations within the Aramaic and Arabic languages meaning "to accept, surrender or submit." which is where the word 'Is-lam' originates from. So Is-ra-el probably means something along the lines of 'God is in charge.'
And you're right, I do reject your line of thought on Micah.
Y'see, the way I see it, what is the point of a prophecy that you can change the meaning of to fit whatever events you wish it to fit? The reason the prophecies exist in the first place is so that we would know the Messiah when he turned up, because he would fulfill 'all' the prophecies, 'as' they were written. They are supposedly a form of identification that cannot be faked. That's why there are so many of them. A person would be known as the Messiah because his fulfillment of all the prophecies, in one lifetime, would leave people with no doubt whatsoever. But if you start changing the meaning or the wording of the prophecies or start claiming that just because some prophecies appear to have been fulfilled then that means the fulfiller must be the Messiah and he will returnto fulfill the rest of the prophecies, then it leaves them useless.
The point you make about the Epistles and Mark seems logical, although the earliest date for Mark that I have seen comes from the author John Robinson in his book 'Redating the New Testament'. He dates Luke no later than 62. Therefore, if Mark was written before Luke, Robinson dates Mark to the mid fifties, which means that the Epistles, if they were written at least 30 years previous to Mark, would actualy be written during Jesus life, before any death and resurrection could take place. So I guess that screws Robinson's theory.
Mark is actualy usualy dated to sometime after 70 AD because of apparent references to the destruction of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem, which happened in 70 AD. So if we go 30 years earlier than that, that gives us a date of around 40 AD, which is about 10 years after the crucifixion event, so the dates cirtainly seem to match up quite nicely. Although I must admit to not being too familiar with the Epistles, any chance of some quotes from the Epistles that mention how we are saved by Christ's death and resurrection?
(just write the numbers if you wish and I'll look them up myself)
Israel probably means something like "God rules". It's original meaning is actualy lost to history, but if we break the word up, we get Is-ra-el. 'El' was the name of the head deity of the pantheon of gods in pre-Judaistic times that seems to have given his name to the monotheistic God, we see his name in the names of the archangels, for instance, Gabri-el means "Man of God", Rapha-el means "God's healing", Uri-el means "Fire of God", ect. 'Is' has connotations within the Aramaic and Arabic languages meaning "to accept, surrender or submit." which is where the word 'Is-lam' originates from. So Is-ra-el probably means something along the lines of 'God is in charge.'
And you're right, I do reject your line of thought on Micah.
Y'see, the way I see it, what is the point of a prophecy that you can change the meaning of to fit whatever events you wish it to fit? The reason the prophecies exist in the first place is so that we would know the Messiah when he turned up, because he would fulfill 'all' the prophecies, 'as' they were written. They are supposedly a form of identification that cannot be faked. That's why there are so many of them. A person would be known as the Messiah because his fulfillment of all the prophecies, in one lifetime, would leave people with no doubt whatsoever. But if you start changing the meaning or the wording of the prophecies or start claiming that just because some prophecies appear to have been fulfilled then that means the fulfiller must be the Messiah and he will returnto fulfill the rest of the prophecies, then it leaves them useless.
The point you make about the Epistles and Mark seems logical, although the earliest date for Mark that I have seen comes from the author John Robinson in his book 'Redating the New Testament'. He dates Luke no later than 62. Therefore, if Mark was written before Luke, Robinson dates Mark to the mid fifties, which means that the Epistles, if they were written at least 30 years previous to Mark, would actualy be written during Jesus life, before any death and resurrection could take place. So I guess that screws Robinson's theory.
Mark is actualy usualy dated to sometime after 70 AD because of apparent references to the destruction of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem, which happened in 70 AD. So if we go 30 years earlier than that, that gives us a date of around 40 AD, which is about 10 years after the crucifixion event, so the dates cirtainly seem to match up quite nicely. Although I must admit to not being too familiar with the Epistles, any chance of some quotes from the Epistles that mention how we are saved by Christ's death and resurrection?
(just write the numbers if you wish and I'll look them up myself)
Yea, that's pretty nifty about "El." pretty early on, the Jewish faith was incorporating things from other religions.
I see your point on prophecy and everything. I guess we differ in what we understand to be substantially changing a prophecy. I think someone in the Church would argue that we aren't changing anything but simply reinterpreting in the light of Christ, and reinterpreting prophecy is something that Jews have done through out history. I guess you could say that we are continuing the tradition lol of course, my explanation/concept might not have been a very good one either. i probably need to sit down with a more educated preacher/theologian/priest and see what they would argue in this situation because, in all reality, i'm a n00b.
lol wow, i have never heard Mark placed before 90, and 90 was a pretty liberal estimate. that's interesting, though.
Well...there are a CRAP load of references... um actually, what i would recommend is to just read through the Book of Romans if you can. that is probably your best introduction to Paul's theology. a lot of the other books you have to kinda sift through general recommendations for daily living in order to get to the theology, but Romans tends to be a bit more straight forward in that regard. However, if you decide that you would really not want to read the whole thing (it's 16 chapters). I think 1-9 would give you a good enough picture.
Yea, that's pretty nifty about "El." pretty early on, the Jewish faith was incorporating things from other religions.
I see your point on prophecy and everything. I guess we differ in what we understand to be substantially changing a prophecy. I think someone in the Church would argue that we aren't changing anything but simply reinterpreting in the light of Christ, and reinterpreting prophecy is something that Jews have done through out history. I guess you could say that we are continuing the tradition lol of course, my explanation/concept might not have been a very good one either. i probably need to sit down with a more educated preacher/theologian/priest and see what they would argue in this situation because, in all reality, i'm a n00b.
lol wow, i have never heard Mark placed before 90, and 90 was a pretty liberal estimate. that's interesting, though.
Well...there are a CRAP load of references... um actually, what i would recommend is to just read through the Book of Romans if you can. that is probably your best introduction to Paul's theology. a lot of the other books you have to kinda sift through general recommendations for daily living in order to get to the theology, but Romans tends to be a bit more straight forward in that regard. However, if you decide that you would really not want to read the whole thing (it's 16 chapters). I think 1-9 would give you a good enough picture.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am : Yea, that's pretty nifty about "El." pretty early on, the Jewish faith was incorporating things from other religions.
Oh yeah, that's even in the Bible. "I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, (El almighty) but was not known to them by my name Yahweh." (Exodus 6.2–3)
Even the name Yahweh comes from polytheistic worship. 'Yah' was the Egyptian word for moon and consequently it was used to refer to their lunar deities, infact, in a place directly on the route between Egypt and Canaan, (unfortunately I can't recall the name of the place right at this moment) there was a place that worshipped 'Yah' as their main deity, this may explain where the name came from if it was adopted by whoever it was that left Egypt, (probably the Atenists) joined up with the Habiru and eventualy became the Hebrews who took over Canaan.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am : I see your point on prophecy and everything. I guess we differ in what we understand to be substantially changing a prophecy. I think someone in the Church would argue that we aren't changing anything but simply reinterpreting in the light of Christ, and reinterpreting prophecy is something that Jews have done through out history. I guess you could say that we are continuing the tradition lol of course, my explanation/concept might not have been a very good one either. i probably need to sit down with a more educated preacher/theologian/priest and see what they would argue in this situation because, in all reality, i'm a n00b.
But that simply doesn't make sense though does it. You have a prophecy, this prophecy is used to 'prove' that a cirtain person is who the prophecy is talking about, but the person doesn't quite match the prophecy so you claim the prophecy must have been wrong then and change, or 'reinterpret' the prophecy.
The obvious problem with that is that if the prophecy is open to reinterpretation, then you can claim that almost anyone is the Messiah and reinterpret the prophecy to suit.
For example, Bethlehem means 'House of Bread'. I was born in a place called 'Nelson' (Named after a pub called The Lord Nelson, not 'Lord Nelson' himself, which is soooo typical for my part of the world. ) which used to be called 'Marsden', 'Marsden' means 'boundry vally', boundries and valleys suggests farming, particularly the growing of crops such as wheat (which is used to make bread) in low, fertile places and to top it off, my family were all bakers back in the 60s when I was born. Because of my family (a family name used to be referred to as 'the house of...' and a person's family 'name' use to be connected to the job he did) and the name of the place where I was born, I can 'reinterpret' myself as being born in the 'House of Bread' or 'Bethlehem' and reinterpret the prophecy as being about myself.
So because of my reinterpretation, I can now say that I have fulfilled the first of the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah can possibly fulfill, the prophecy of birth.
As it happens, my first name is David too so I could quite easily name my family as the 'House of David' and that'd be another prophecy fulfilled, if I 'reinterpret' it enough.
Am I the Messiah?
Of course not, and it's obviously a very loose reinterpretation, but you get my point?
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am : Yea, that's pretty nifty about "El." pretty early on, the Jewish faith was incorporating things from other religions.
Oh yeah, that's even in the Bible. "I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, (El almighty) but was not known to them by my name Yahweh." (Exodus 6.2–3)
Even the name Yahweh comes from polytheistic worship. 'Yah' was the Egyptian word for moon and consequently it was used to refer to their lunar deities, infact, in a place directly on the route between Egypt and Canaan, (unfortunately I can't recall the name of the place right at this moment) there was a place that worshipped 'Yah' as their main deity, this may explain where the name came from if it was adopted by whoever it was that left Egypt, (probably the Atenists) joined up with the Habiru and eventualy became the Hebrews who took over Canaan.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am : I see your point on prophecy and everything. I guess we differ in what we understand to be substantially changing a prophecy. I think someone in the Church would argue that we aren't changing anything but simply reinterpreting in the light of Christ, and reinterpreting prophecy is something that Jews have done through out history. I guess you could say that we are continuing the tradition lol of course, my explanation/concept might not have been a very good one either. i probably need to sit down with a more educated preacher/theologian/priest and see what they would argue in this situation because, in all reality, i'm a n00b.
But that simply doesn't make sense though does it. You have a prophecy, this prophecy is used to 'prove' that a cirtain person is who the prophecy is talking about, but the person doesn't quite match the prophecy so you claim the prophecy must have been wrong then and change, or 'reinterpret' the prophecy.
The obvious problem with that is that if the prophecy is open to reinterpretation, then you can claim that almost anyone is the Messiah and reinterpret the prophecy to suit.
For example, Bethlehem means 'House of Bread'. I was born in a place called 'Nelson' (Named after a pub called The Lord Nelson, not 'Lord Nelson' himself, which is soooo typical for my part of the world. ) which used to be called 'Marsden', 'Marsden' means 'boundry vally', boundries and valleys suggests farming, particularly the growing of crops such as wheat (which is used to make bread) in low, fertile places and to top it off, my family were all bakers back in the 60s when I was born. Because of my family (a family name used to be referred to as 'the house of...' and a person's family 'name' use to be connected to the job he did) and the name of the place where I was born, I can 'reinterpret' myself as being born in the 'House of Bread' or 'Bethlehem' and reinterpret the prophecy as being about myself.
So because of my reinterpretation, I can now say that I have fulfilled the first of the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah can possibly fulfill, the prophecy of birth.
As it happens, my first name is David too so I could quite easily name my family as the 'House of David' and that'd be another prophecy fulfilled, if I 'reinterpret' it enough.
Am I the Messiah?
Of course not, and it's obviously a very loose reinterpretation, but you get my point?
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am :
lol wow, i have never heard Mark placed before 90, and 90 was a pretty liberal estimate. that's interesting, though.
Well there are some that say that Mark 13:14-23 refers to events of the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-135 (Simon Bar Kokhba was a Jewish rebel who was said to be from the House of David who rebelled against Rome and actualy ruled over a Jewish state for a couple of years, which led to him also being known as a Messiah or Christ) so when Mark talks about 'false Christs' and 'false prophets' and 'leading the elect astray' then they claim it refers to Bar Kokhba so it cannot have been written before 135 AD. But this really is such a loose interpretation it's almost laughable. The only 'definate' dating material within the contents of Mark is the destruction of the Temple. That happened in 70 AD so Mark must date from 'sometime' after that.
I suppose 20 years later in 90 AD is a reasonable guess.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am :
Well...there are a CRAP load of references... um actually, what i would recommend is to just read through the Book of Romans if you can. that is probably your best introduction to Paul's theology. a lot of the other books you have to kinda sift through general recommendations for daily living in order to get to the theology, but Romans tends to be a bit more straight forward in that regard. However, if you decide that you would really not want to read the whole thing (it's 16 chapters). I think 1-9 would give you a good enough picture.
Thanks, I'll get on it.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am :
lol wow, i have never heard Mark placed before 90, and 90 was a pretty liberal estimate. that's interesting, though.
Well there are some that say that Mark 13:14-23 refers to events of the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-135 (Simon Bar Kokhba was a Jewish rebel who was said to be from the House of David who rebelled against Rome and actualy ruled over a Jewish state for a couple of years, which led to him also being known as a Messiah or Christ) so when Mark talks about 'false Christs' and 'false prophets' and 'leading the elect astray' then they claim it refers to Bar Kokhba so it cannot have been written before 135 AD. But this really is such a loose interpretation it's almost laughable. The only 'definate' dating material within the contents of Mark is the destruction of the Temple. That happened in 70 AD so Mark must date from 'sometime' after that.
I suppose 20 years later in 90 AD is a reasonable guess.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 17th, 2009 at 11:45am :
Well...there are a CRAP load of references... um actually, what i would recommend is to just read through the Book of Romans if you can. that is probably your best introduction to Paul's theology. a lot of the other books you have to kinda sift through general recommendations for daily living in order to get to the theology, but Romans tends to be a bit more straight forward in that regard. However, if you decide that you would really not want to read the whole thing (it's 16 chapters). I think 1-9 would give you a good enough picture.
OK, so that conversation has pretty much petered out, so, new topic.
“And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goeth toward the east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” (Genesis 2:10-14)
So, the Bible tells us that the Garden of Eden contained the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. Obviously, if these rivers 'watered the garden' as the Bible says, then they must have existed before the garden existed.
Geology tells us that the first sediments to be laid down in both these rivers date to around 8400 years ago, which corresponds to the ending of the last ice age, meaning that they were probably formed as a result of the ending of the last major glaciation from the release of vast amounts of meltwater. Both these rivers are fed from a source in the Armenian mountains, which actualy still contain the remnants of glaciers that date back to the last ice age.
From the Biblical quote 'from thence it was parted, and became four heads', we can surmise that the Pishon and Gihon were part of the same river system as the Euphrates and Tigris. That they no longer exist probably relates to the melting glaciers that once fed them pretty much melting to nothing, therefore removing their source leaving only the Euphrates and Tigris being fed from their source in the Armenian mountains.
So, we can geologicaly date the Garden of Eden as existing sometime after 8400 years ago.
Agriculture dates to around 7000 years ago in the very same area that we are talking about, and the word 'garden' definately suggests agriculture, so we must date the existence of the Garden of Eden after the end of the last glaciation, probably around 7000 years ago.
Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden if I remember rightly, so they must have appeared sometime afterwards. All of which seems to suggest that the Ussher chronology date for the creation of Adam and Eve wasn't very far off, possibly out by about a thousand years.
Look at the evidence for the date that Adam and Eve were supposedly created, we have Biblical, archeological and geological evidence all corroborating with Ussher's chronology, which itself was corroborated by Bede, Scaliger, Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, John Lightfoot and every Young Earth Creationists that's ever bothered to work out the date from the Biblical texts for themselves. It all pretty much points to sometime between around 8000 and 6000 years ago. Call it 7000 years ago to split the difference and give us a rough estimate.
And because we know that Homo Sapiens was around 200,000 years ago in Africa, then there is no possible way that Adam and Eve could have been the first people on earth. Therefore the Biblical story of Adam and Eve is more than likely the metaphorical story of the birth of agriculture, which itself is probably the biggest defining moment in the history of human civilisation, so it's no wonder it was recorded.
OK, so that conversation has pretty much petered out, so, new topic.
“And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goeth toward the east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” (Genesis 2:10-14)
So, the Bible tells us that the Garden of Eden contained the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. Obviously, if these rivers 'watered the garden' as the Bible says, then they must have existed before the garden existed.
Geology tells us that the first sediments to be laid down in both these rivers date to around 8400 years ago, which corresponds to the ending of the last ice age, meaning that they were probably formed as a result of the ending of the last major glaciation from the release of vast amounts of meltwater. Both these rivers are fed from a source in the Armenian mountains, which actualy still contain the remnants of glaciers that date back to the last ice age.
From the Biblical quote 'from thence it was parted, and became four heads', we can surmise that the Pishon and Gihon were part of the same river system as the Euphrates and Tigris. That they no longer exist probably relates to the melting glaciers that once fed them pretty much melting to nothing, therefore removing their source leaving only the Euphrates and Tigris being fed from their source in the Armenian mountains.
So, we can geologicaly date the Garden of Eden as existing sometime after 8400 years ago.
Agriculture dates to around 7000 years ago in the very same area that we are talking about, and the word 'garden' definately suggests agriculture, so we must date the existence of the Garden of Eden after the end of the last glaciation, probably around 7000 years ago.
Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden if I remember rightly, so they must have appeared sometime afterwards. All of which seems to suggest that the Ussher chronology date for the creation of Adam and Eve wasn't very far off, possibly out by about a thousand years.
Look at the evidence for the date that Adam and Eve were supposedly created, we have Biblical, archeological and geological evidence all corroborating with Ussher's chronology, which itself was corroborated by Bede, Scaliger, Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, John Lightfoot and every Young Earth Creationists that's ever bothered to work out the date from the Biblical texts for themselves. It all pretty much points to sometime between around 8000 and 6000 years ago. Call it 7000 years ago to split the difference and give us a rough estimate.
And because we know that Homo Sapiens was around 200,000 years ago in Africa, then there is no possible way that Adam and Eve could have been the first people on earth. Therefore the Biblical story of Adam and Eve is more than likely the metaphorical story of the birth of agriculture, which itself is probably the biggest defining moment in the history of human civilisation, so it's no wonder it was recorded.
Slacker, what you said is basically a fully formed version of my own understanding of Genesis. Did you have anywhere that you wanted to take that discussion wise, or did you just want to see how people would respond?
oh yea, btw guys, i'm working as a Freshman Adviser right now (ie living on a freshman hall as a sophomore), so over the next week, my responses will be sporadic and crappy at best as we get these guys settled and go through the fun and general hysteria of Orientation Week (which lasts 4-5 days...)
Slacker, what you said is basically a fully formed version of my own understanding of Genesis. Did you have anywhere that you wanted to take that discussion wise, or did you just want to see how people would respond?
oh yea, btw guys, i'm working as a Freshman Adviser right now (ie living on a freshman hall as a sophomore), so over the next week, my responses will be sporadic and crappy at best as we get these guys settled and go through the fun and general hysteria of Orientation Week (which lasts 4-5 days...)
tyronelab wrote on Aug 21st, 2009 at 10:01am : New topic, or old topic rehashed? Either way, I'll possibly bite later on.
Well yeah, I have talked about the Garden of Eden before, but this time I'm adding geologocal evidence for the age of garden, which in turn gives us an era for the existence of Adam and Eve, which is fairly closely corroborated by the Ussher chronology (which itself is further corroborated by quite a lot of people) but which all just goes to prove that Adam and Eve could not possibly have been the first people on earth, as remains of homo sapiens in Africa goes back around 200,000 years.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 12:51am : Slacker, what you said is basically a fully formed version of my own understanding of Genesis. Did you have anywhere that you wanted to take that discussion wise, or did you just want to see how people would respond?
Just wanted to see how people responded really.
I've just recently had a real ding dong battle with denizenz over this subject on the Religion and Philosophy thread because he simply refuses to even acknowledge any evidence that could possibly go against his belief. He basicaly just says that if it goes against his belief, then no matter how good the evidence, it must be wrong, which I just cannot get my head around, so I thought I'd bring it here and see if this is just something particular to denizenz or a general Christian thing.
Obviously, if you're in agreement with me, then it's looking like it must be something particular to denizenz, but it'd be interesting to see what tyronelab and any of the others have to say on the subject.
Good luck with the Freshman Adviser thing bud.
tyronelab wrote on Aug 21st, 2009 at 10:01am : New topic, or old topic rehashed? Either way, I'll possibly bite later on.
Well yeah, I have talked about the Garden of Eden before, but this time I'm adding geologocal evidence for the age of garden, which in turn gives us an era for the existence of Adam and Eve, which is fairly closely corroborated by the Ussher chronology (which itself is further corroborated by quite a lot of people) but which all just goes to prove that Adam and Eve could not possibly have been the first people on earth, as remains of homo sapiens in Africa goes back around 200,000 years.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 12:51am : Slacker, what you said is basically a fully formed version of my own understanding of Genesis. Did you have anywhere that you wanted to take that discussion wise, or did you just want to see how people would respond?
Just wanted to see how people responded really.
I've just recently had a real ding dong battle with denizenz over this subject on the Religion and Philosophy thread because he simply refuses to even acknowledge any evidence that could possibly go against his belief. He basicaly just says that if it goes against his belief, then no matter how good the evidence, it must be wrong, which I just cannot get my head around, so I thought I'd bring it here and see if this is just something particular to denizenz or a general Christian thing.
Obviously, if you're in agreement with me, then it's looking like it must be something particular to denizenz, but it'd be interesting to see what tyronelab and any of the others have to say on the subject.
My name is John. I'm pleased to meet you. I came upon this thread and couldn't help but be tempted to get involved in your conversation, particularly because, frankly, you're not a total asshole. And let's be honest: Pretty much everybody who argues on the internet (of whatever persuasion) is an asshole. That makes you much more interesting.
I'm not exactly sure how to approach this because you've posted so much in the one thread that I feel the need to hit the ground running. For that reason, I'll try to touch briefly on just about everything you wrote. At the very least, I do hope that that will let you get a feel for my general understanding of things.
BTW, this wouldn't be an attempt to shut me up would it? Because as far as I'm concerned, all I've been doing is telling you guys the historic truth as we know it. Any of you are more than welcome to look this stuff up for yourselves... I just thought you guys might be interested in the history of your own religion.
Let me start with my fundamental thesis, which I will be fleshing out over the course of the rest of the post. You're posturing as someone who is delivering "the historic truth as we know it" to some folks who don't have that knowledge yet. But the fundamental problem here is that there is no authoritative "we" who believes that what you've written is a settled consensus. Some scattered things here and there, yes, but the fundamental thrust is neither established nor consensus. For instance, you're right that there are questions about whether Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke (though it's probably nearly 50/50 among scholars, to be honest; obviously views on the authorship of, say, the Pastoral Epistles are much more one-sided), but I don't know of a single scholar who believes it had multiple authors. And the bigger things you're saying are inspired by 19th century scholarship -- history-of-religions, Christianity's dependence on mystery religions -- that hasn't stood the test of time in its strong forms.
So I suppose the question is: What are your sources? On what grounds do you say that you're presenting "the historic truth as we know it"?
Hello SlackerBabbath,
My name is John. I'm pleased to meet you. I came upon this thread and couldn't help but be tempted to get involved in your conversation, particularly because, frankly, you're not a total asshole. And let's be honest: Pretty much everybody who argues on the internet (of whatever persuasion) is an asshole. That makes you much more interesting.
I'm not exactly sure how to approach this because you've posted so much in the one thread that I feel the need to hit the ground running. For that reason, I'll try to touch briefly on just about everything you wrote. At the very least, I do hope that that will let you get a feel for my general understanding of things.
[quote]BTW, this wouldn't be an attempt to shut me up would it? Because as far as I'm concerned, all I've been doing is telling you guys the historic truth as we know it. Any of you are more than welcome to look this stuff up for yourselves... I just thought you guys might be interested in the history of your own religion.[/quote] Let me start with my fundamental thesis, which I will be fleshing out over the course of the rest of the post. You're posturing as someone who is delivering "the historic truth as we know it" to some folks who don't have that knowledge yet. But the fundamental problem here is that there is no authoritative "we" who believes that what you've written is a settled consensus. Some scattered things here and there, yes, but the fundamental thrust is neither established nor consensus. For instance, you're right that there are questions about whether Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke (though it's probably nearly 50/50 among scholars, to be honest; obviously views on the authorship of, say, the Pastoral Epistles are much more one-sided), but I don't know of a single scholar who believes it had multiple authors. And the bigger things you're saying are inspired by 19th century scholarship -- history-of-religions, Christianity's dependence on mystery religions -- that hasn't stood the test of time in its strong forms.
So I suppose the question is: What are your sources? On what grounds do you say that you're presenting "the historic truth as we know it"?
It's quite obvious, when you look at the evidence, that religion started with a belief in the afterlife, before there was a belief in deities, and because of this belief, people believed in (and worshipped) their ancestors. Later we see evidence of belief in a powerful 'first' ancestor, a Mother Goddess who gave birth to the human race and watches over them, effectively the first deity, from then on objects like the sun, water, the land itself, even lightning are all considered as deities, but not anthropormorphic deities. Later, people start picturing these deities as human shaped, eventualy Abrahamic monotheism is developed from creator deities from earlier pantheons and from there splits into three different versions, which themselves have several different factions within them.
Here's that history-of-religions stuff I was talking about earlier, and there are two things to say about it. The first is that it's not quite obvious, when you look at the evidence, that this is true. This is something that people believed because they were taking the "evidence" and weaving it into the tapestry of their prior beliefs, memories, observational skills, and imaginations. What models "fit" at that time don't so much fit any more, however, as they were trying to see simple, progressive evolutionary trees everywhere but we've become largely disillusioned with that assumption. It's a bit like developments in physics -- from clockwork universe to relativity and quantum theory -- or evolutionary theory -- from a straightforward tree to a complex, vital web.
But the second thing to say is that obviously if Christianity is true then some sort of "natural history of religion" will be possible. Of course people would have innate "religious" impulses. And of course Christianity wouldn't just fall out of the sky: To suggest otherwise would be to deny the incarnational particularism and contextualism of the God of Abraham, the Prophets, and Jesus. Now, something like Gnosticism, by its nature, should appear to have fallen out of the sky, but the Christian tradition has a different understanding of the relationship between God and the world. Far too many critics see Christianity as some similarly bastardized Platonism, and therefore assume that it must look one way (say, it must have fallen out of heaven) when quite the opposite is true.
[quote]It's quite obvious, when you look at the evidence, that religion started with a belief in the afterlife, before there was a belief in deities, and because of this belief, people believed in (and worshipped) their ancestors. Later we see evidence of belief in a powerful 'first' ancestor, a Mother Goddess who gave birth to the human race and watches over them, effectively the first deity, from then on objects like the sun, water, the land itself, even lightning are all considered as deities, but not anthropormorphic deities. Later, people start picturing these deities as human shaped, eventualy Abrahamic monotheism is developed from creator deities from earlier pantheons and from there splits into three different versions, which themselves have several different factions within them.[/quote] Here's that history-of-religions stuff I was talking about earlier, and there are two things to say about it. The first is that it's [i]not[/i] quite obvious, when you look at the evidence, that this is true. This is something that people believed because they were taking the "evidence" and weaving it into the tapestry of their prior beliefs, memories, observational skills, and imaginations. What models "fit" at that time don't so much fit any more, however, as they were trying to see simple, progressive evolutionary trees everywhere but we've become largely disillusioned with that assumption. It's a bit like developments in physics -- from clockwork universe to relativity and quantum theory -- or evolutionary theory -- from a straightforward tree to a complex, vital web.
But the second thing to say is that obviously if Christianity is true then some sort of "natural history of religion" will be possible. Of course people would have innate "religious" impulses. And of course Christianity wouldn't just fall out of the sky: To suggest otherwise would be to deny the incarnational particularism and contextualism of the God of Abraham, the Prophets, and Jesus. Now, something like Gnosticism, by its nature, should appear to have fallen out of the sky, but the Christian tradition has a different understanding of the relationship between God and the world. Far too many critics see Christianity as some similarly bastardized Platonism, and therefore assume that it must look one way (say, it must have fallen out of heaven) when quite the opposite is true.
How many times have you heard that someone killed people then said 'God told me to do it.'? It may not be something that's acceptable within modern Christianity, but still, at some point, people are influenced to kill by religion.
It may be a twisted, warped view, but you can still kinda see where they get it from when you look at cirtain scriptures.
Look at the Crusades, thousands killed because of Christian views on religion.
Infact, have a good long look at the Crusades and the 'Islamic Golden Age' which was happening at the same time. In those days, the roles were reversed, Christianity was a fundamentaly violent religion and Islam was the peace loving enlightened religion, dedicated to the betterment of mankind. It was actualy the Crusades that caused Islam to become fundamentaly violent.
The Spanish Inquisition would probably be good reading too.
These are pretty far from real historical scholarship. See Netanyahu or Henry Kamen on the Spanish Inquisition, and Jonathan Riley-Smith on the Crusades.
No matter how terrible the Spanish Inquisition was (and I do recommend you read up on what it was actually like, which is considerably different from what you've likely heard), and no matter how guilty the Church was and is for her part in the matter, the blame cannot be placed primarily at the church's feet. Pope Sixtus IV, who originally authorized it, discovered how terrible it was almost immediately and denounced it in a papal bull. Pope Innocent VIII, shortly thereafter, tried to allow for appeals to Rome in order to circumscribe its power. In both cases, however, the Spanish monarchs blocked the Popes from stopping what was going on. The Inquisition was primarily a tool whereby Ferdinand and Isabella could consolidate their power. The issue is not, then, the Church, or "religion," whatever that might mean. The Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally one of the violent birth pangs of the modern State, freeing itself from the proverbial shackles of superstitious religion. Oddly enough, then, it is a story of "religion" attempting to force morality on the (emergingly) secular State and the secular element ignoring it and committing egregious violence instead.
Next, about Islam: Islam traipsed around the nearby areas, conquering everything it could, and so experienced a "golden age" in the sense that it could take all the learning from these conquered lands and synthesize it. But it really didn't develop too much in the way of new things. Compare this to Medieval Europe: the wheeled plow and rigid horse collar, watersheels and coal power, wrought and cast iron, the flying buttress and Gothic arch, the mechanical clock and magnetic compass -- even eyeglasses. It saw protection, dignity, and even privilege for women, and at its height saw the virtual extinction of slavery. The major municipalities held out free hospitals for the poor, and the so-called "Peace of God" and "Truce of God" prevented war against non-combatants and private wars, and forbade war on certain days of the year, which eventually accounted for 3/4 of the calendar. The "Golden Age of Islam" was nothing like this.
And now for the Crusades. I realize that Steven Runciman spread a gripping tale that conquered the popular imagination quite some time ago, and even that today this kind of stuff gets repeated in Da Vinci Code-esque diatribes like "A World Lit Only By Fire," but this really just isn't how things played out. The First Crusade was a response to stories of atrocities committed against Eastern Christians and Western Christian pilgrims by Seljuk Turks, and a request for defensive aid by the East against attacking armies. (The Muslims, while certainly not the ridiculous stereotype painted by modern conservative talking heads, were far from a purely peaceful people prior to the Crusades. They conquered all surrounding areas, started conflict with the Christians as early as the 7th century, and were the aggressors in the First Crusade.) Once the floodgates opened with that First Crusade, all sorts of things could happen, so the remainder of the Crusades were a mixed bag. In sum, though, it provided the occasion for the last hurrah of Western barbarian culture, garnished with chivalry. At the end of the day, then, we can hardly label the Crusades as a battle between the evil, violent Christians who were raining on the parade of some proto-humanist Islam.
[quote]How many times have you heard that someone killed people then said 'God told me to do it.'? It may not be something that's acceptable within modern Christianity, but still, at some point, people are influenced to kill by religion.
It may be a twisted, warped view, but you can still kinda see where they get it from when you look at cirtain scriptures.
Look at the Crusades, thousands killed because of Christian views on religion.
Infact, have a good long look at the Crusades and the 'Islamic Golden Age' which was happening at the same time. In those days, the roles were reversed, Christianity was a fundamentaly violent religion and Islam was the peace loving enlightened religion, dedicated to the betterment of mankind. It was actualy the Crusades that caused Islam to become fundamentaly violent.
The Spanish Inquisition would probably be good reading too.[/quote] These are pretty far from real historical scholarship. See Netanyahu or Henry Kamen on the Spanish Inquisition, and Jonathan Riley-Smith on the Crusades.
No matter how terrible the Spanish Inquisition was (and I do recommend you read up on what it was actually like, which is considerably different from what you've likely heard), and no matter how guilty the Church was and is for her part in the matter, the blame cannot be placed primarily at the church's feet. Pope Sixtus IV, who originally authorized it, discovered how terrible it was almost immediately and denounced it in a papal bull. Pope Innocent VIII, shortly thereafter, tried to allow for appeals to Rome in order to circumscribe its power. In both cases, however, the Spanish monarchs blocked the Popes from stopping what was going on. The Inquisition was primarily a tool whereby Ferdinand and Isabella could consolidate their power. The issue is not, then, the Church, or "religion," whatever that might mean. The Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally one of the violent birth pangs of the modern State, freeing itself from the proverbial shackles of superstitious religion. Oddly enough, then, it is a story of "religion" attempting to force morality on the (emergingly) secular State and the secular element ignoring it and committing egregious violence instead.
Next, about Islam: Islam traipsed around the nearby areas, conquering everything it could, and so experienced a "golden age" in the sense that it could take all the learning from these conquered lands and synthesize it. But it really didn't develop too much in the way of [i]new[/i] things. Compare this to Medieval Europe: the wheeled plow and rigid horse collar, watersheels and coal power, wrought and cast iron, the flying buttress and Gothic arch, the mechanical clock and magnetic compass -- even eyeglasses. It saw protection, dignity, and even privilege for women, and at its height saw the virtual extinction of slavery. The major municipalities held out free hospitals for the poor, and the so-called "Peace of God" and "Truce of God" prevented war against non-combatants and private wars, and forbade war on certain days of the year, which eventually accounted for 3/4 of the calendar. The "Golden Age of Islam" was nothing like this.
And now for the Crusades. I realize that Steven Runciman spread a gripping tale that conquered the popular imagination quite some time ago, and even that today this kind of stuff gets repeated in [i]Da Vinci Code[/i]-esque diatribes like "A World Lit Only By Fire," but this really just isn't how things played out. The First Crusade was a response to stories of atrocities committed against Eastern Christians and Western Christian pilgrims by Seljuk Turks, and a request for defensive aid by the East against attacking armies. (The Muslims, while certainly not the ridiculous stereotype painted by modern conservative talking heads, were far from a purely peaceful people prior to the Crusades. They conquered all surrounding areas, started conflict with the Christians as early as the 7th century, and were the aggressors in the First Crusade.) Once the floodgates opened with that First Crusade, all sorts of things could happen, so the remainder of the Crusades were a mixed bag. In sum, though, it provided the occasion for the last hurrah of Western barbarian culture, garnished with chivalry. At the end of the day, then, we can hardly label the Crusades as a battle between the evil, violent Christians who were raining on the parade of some proto-humanist Islam.
I'm sure he was, but it was Paul who radicaly altered the version of Christianity that was followed by Jesus' own followers, the very people who spoke and listened 'directly' to Jesus.
Paul came along after the death of Jesus saying that Jesus had spoken to him in a dream and went about opening Christianity up to the Gentiles. (non Jews) He was a Hellenistic Jew, influenced by Greek and Roman traditions and religions and from then on, we can see Christianity assimilating notions from other religions that were previously alien to the Judaistic Messianic Cult that Christianity developed from.
Take for instance the notion of the Messiah.
To the Jews, the Messiah was always going to be someone under God's command, like a prophet, not God himself. The Messiah's mother in the original Hebrew version of the Messianic Prophecies was described as a 'young woman' yet in the Christian version which was written in Greek, this was changed to 'virgin', probably because the worship of Mithra was very popular at the time and Mithra's mother was a virgin. (There is a Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran, which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra" and dates to around 200 BC.)
For a long time, Christianity appears to have gained converts from outside of Judaism mainly by assimilating parts of other religions, especialy when Emperor Constantine got in on the Christian act about 300 years later. He greatly altered Christianity, assimilating many pagan traditions from around Europe, such as Yule (Germanic paganism) and the notion of trinity (which became doctrine at the Council of Nicea, arranged by Constantine) because trinities were abundant in Greek, Roman and European pantheon religions, all so that he could convert the entire Empire to one religion then place the centre of that religion in Rome.
Jesus became both the son of a God, (like the Greek hero Heculese, also very popular amongst both the Greeks and the Romans, who called him Heraclese), but also God himself so that Christianity could still remain monotheistic.
This version of Christianity has very little to do with the version of Jesus experienced by those original followers and deciples.
Hmm. This is a sort of scattershot assortment of ideas that did in fact appear among some scholars of the 19th century, but again they really just don't hold. Let's take them one-by-one.
Was Paul the author of Christianity as we now know it? This is the only point you make on which certain contemporary scholars might agree. Even there, however, this is a subject of considerable debate, and while many scholars would distinguish between "the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith" (notice the presupposed dualism underlying their thought), they wouldn't be so quick to make the simplistic Jesus vs. Paul dualism that scholars of ages past did. The basic split goes like this. Those who see Jesus as truly Jewish are then able to understand Paul as an expositor of the tradition. (The notable exception here would be Marcus Borg, but, well, that's just one individual, so you're hardly talking about established fact.) Those who deny or downplay that Jesus was basically Jewish want instead to regard Jesus as some sort of ancient sage who walked around telling people to be nice to each other, but unfortunately then Paul came in and mucked everything up with dogma and institutionalization and such as that. From my perspective, however, it's pretty dubious to deny that Jesus was basically Jewish. I can't see a quasi-Gnostic message as something that would raise the ire of Rome or the Jewish leaders -- the cases of the real Gnostics are instructive here, after all -- and I certainly can't see it gaining much of a following amongst Second Temple Jews.
We don't have any evidence of this Jesus, either. After all, Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and the Petrine Epistles have a theology very continuous with Pauline theology, so we have no evidence there of this anti-Pauline Jesus. The Johannine corpus is most different, but there we find great consonance with all the Pauline themes that are supposed to be at odds with the "real" Jesus. The Gnostic writings appear a century or more after Paul's death, with the possible exception of some small strands of Thomas, so while they offer a Jesus very different from Paul's we have no reason to believe they have a genetic connection with Jesus. So basically your position hangs on privileging small parts of a later book that may have been written around the same time as Paul with the entirety of the New Testament and every piece of information we have about early Christians. (Ignatius, Polycarp, the Didache, Justin, Irenaeus, etc. are obviously in continuity wi
[quote]I'm sure he was, but it was Paul who radicaly altered the version of Christianity that was followed by Jesus' own followers, the very people who spoke and listened 'directly' to Jesus.
Paul came along after the death of Jesus saying that Jesus had spoken to him in a dream and went about opening Christianity up to the Gentiles. (non Jews) He was a Hellenistic Jew, influenced by Greek and Roman traditions and religions and from then on, we can see Christianity assimilating notions from other religions that were previously alien to the Judaistic Messianic Cult that Christianity developed from.
Take for instance the notion of the Messiah.
To the Jews, the Messiah was always going to be someone under God's command, like a prophet, not God himself. The Messiah's mother in the original Hebrew version of the Messianic Prophecies was described as a 'young woman' yet in the Christian version which was written in Greek, this was changed to 'virgin', probably because the worship of Mithra was very popular at the time and Mithra's mother was a virgin. (There is a Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran, which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra" and dates to around 200 BC.)
For a long time, Christianity appears to have gained converts from outside of Judaism mainly by assimilating parts of other religions, especialy when Emperor Constantine got in on the Christian act about 300 years later. He greatly altered Christianity, assimilating many pagan traditions from around Europe, such as Yule (Germanic paganism) and the notion of trinity (which became doctrine at the Council of Nicea, arranged by Constantine) because trinities were abundant in Greek, Roman and European pantheon religions, all so that he could convert the entire Empire to one religion then place the centre of that religion in Rome.
Jesus became both the son of a God, (like the Greek hero Heculese, also very popular amongst both the Greeks and the Romans, who called him Heraclese), but also God himself so that Christianity could still remain monotheistic.
This version of Christianity has very little to do with the version of Jesus experienced by those original followers and deciples.[/quote] Hmm. This is a sort of scattershot assortment of ideas that did in fact appear among some scholars of the 19th century, but again they really just don't hold. Let's take them one-by-one.
Was Paul the author of Christianity as we now know it? This is the only point you make on which certain contemporary scholars might agree. Even there, however, this is a subject of considerable debate, and while many scholars would distinguish between "the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith" (notice the presupposed dualism underlying their thought), they wouldn't be so quick to make the simplistic Jesus vs. Paul dualism that scholars of ages past did. The basic split goes like this. Those who see Jesus as truly Jewish are then able to understand Paul as an expositor of the tradition. (The notable exception here would be Marcus Borg, but, well, that's just one individual, so you're hardly talking about established fact.) Those who deny or downplay that Jesus was basically Jewish want instead to regard Jesus as some sort of ancient sage who walked around telling people to be nice to each other, but unfortunately then Paul came in and mucked everything up with dogma and institutionalization and such as that. From my perspective, however, it's pretty dubious to deny that Jesus was basically Jewish. I can't see a quasi-Gnostic message as something that would raise the ire of Rome or the Jewish leaders -- the cases of the real Gnostics are instructive here, after all -- and I certainly can't see it gaining much of a following amongst Second Temple Jews.
We don't have any evidence of this Jesus, either. After all, Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and the Petrine Epistles have a theology very continuous with Pauline theology, so we have no evidence there of this anti-Pauline Jesus. The Johannine corpus is most different, but there we find great consonance with all the Pauline themes that are supposed to be at odds with the "real" Jesus. The Gnostic writings appear a century or more after Paul's death, with the possible exception of some small strands of Thomas, so while they offer a Jesus very different from Paul's we have no reason to believe they have a genetic connection with Jesus. So basically your position hangs on privileging small parts of a later book that [i]may[/i] have been written around the same time as Paul with the entirety of the New Testament and every piece of information we have about early Christians. (Ignatius, Polycarp, the Didache, Justin, Irenaeus, etc. are obviously in continuity wi
Next you speak of "Messiah." You say that Jesus couldn't have been the Jewish Messiah because the Messiah was supposed to be God's agent, below God. But this is how Paul describes Jesus. Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7), and "hands over the kingdom to the God and Father" (1 Cor 15:24); for Paul, then, Jesus is God's agent, below God. You are missing the logic that the early Christians used to say that Jesus was God. The issue was not about Jesus' glory or position. Instead, the issue was what the Kingdom and redemption meant. For the early Christians, redemption meant God coming to dwell with man, man being united to God, and therefore man being about to share in divine life. If Jesus is fully human we humans can be directly connected to him, and vice-versa for Jesus as God. The doctrine of the Incarnation, then, allows humans to be united to God and to share in God's life. This is the impetus of the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, and it is in continuity with the Hebrew Bible's narrative of redemption, in which God chooses a people, dwells among them, and works from there to bring life to the whole world. What this means, then, is that the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus stood on his work as Messiah. Far from precluding Jesus' divinity, then, his Messianic office was seen to establish that he was to be God. Whether it was previously believed that the Messiah (or Messiahs) would be God was irrelevant, because the New Testament doesn't consider that a requirement of Jesus' divinity; rather, Jesus' work as Messiah convinced them that he must have been God.
You follow this with some talk of Mithraism (later Hercules), citing some similarities and thereby inferring that Christianity was cobbled together or plagiarized from surrounding pagan beliefs. But, simply put, similarity does not entail genealogy. Yes, when you look at isolated elements of the various mystery religions you can make them seem quite similar to isolated elements of Christianity. But nobody believes that Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions any more because there's no evidence beyond these trivial correlations. (Well, Robert Price still thinks there is such a connection, but he also thinks Jesus never existed. The point is that it's a fringe idea, certainly not the established scholarly consensus.) It would be a bit like saying that since the Eiffel Tower is important for battle scenes in both Rush Hour 3 and GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra, one must have plagiarized the other. Well, maybe, or maybe the Eiffel Tower is just an interesting, iconic thing. And maybe a virgin birth is an interesting, iconic thing. But more than that, to identify Chrisitanity with the mystery religions is to ignore the vast differences in their fundamental narrative logic. Christianity is about God coming to the world to make all things right with it; the mystery religions, disparate as they were, were about initiation into secret mysteries. Christianity circumscribed one's allegiance to the Empire; the mystery religions complemented it because they were other-worldly. To suggest that Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions is, then, not to explain where Christianity derived its fundamental character, which means that you haven't demonstrated plagiarism that is really fundamentally significant. (As with the divinity of Christ, if you look back into the reasons Christians were committed to the virgin birth of Jesus and the title "son of God" it really has nothing to do with one of the multiple stories of Mithras's origin or a title that was once applied to Hercules.) Again, this isn't scholarly consensus, and it's more speculation than established fact.
I've written so much at this point that I'd rather not talk too much about Constantine, but put frankly, there isn't a credible source for this. If you actually go back and read the works of the pre-Constantinian leaders, Constantine didn't change things (in the strong sense). Trinitarianism was being developed long before his time. Not long after Constantine's time, the (truly amazing) Emperor Julian the Apostate tried to rid the Empire of Christianity and restore paganism, but none of the people were interested in a pagan revival, so it certainly can't be said that Constantine was simply engaged in a political power play that did not reflect vast changes in the Empire that were already occurring without him.
Finally, no, Trinities were not abundant in Greek, Roman, and European pantheon religions. There were triads and such, but Trinitarianism was unique. It says that the Father is not the Son or Spirit, the Son
Next you speak of "Messiah." You say that Jesus couldn't have been the Jewish Messiah because the Messiah was supposed to be God's agent, below God. But this is how Paul describes Jesus. Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7), and "hands over the kingdom to the God and Father" (1 Cor 15:24); for Paul, then, Jesus is God's agent, below God. You are missing the logic that the early Christians used to say that Jesus was God. The issue was not about Jesus' glory or position. Instead, the issue was what the Kingdom and redemption meant. For the early Christians, redemption meant God coming to dwell with man, man being united to God, and therefore man being about to share in divine life. If Jesus is fully human we humans can be directly connected to him, and vice-versa for Jesus as God. The doctrine of the Incarnation, then, allows humans to be united to God and to share in God's life. This is the impetus of the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, and it is in continuity with the Hebrew Bible's narrative of redemption, in which God chooses a people, dwells among them, and works from there to bring life to the whole world. What this means, then, is that the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus stood on his work as Messiah. Far from precluding Jesus' divinity, then, his Messianic office was seen to establish that he was to be God. Whether it was previously believed that the Messiah (or Messiahs) would be God was irrelevant, because the New Testament doesn't consider that a requirement of Jesus' divinity; rather, Jesus' work as Messiah convinced them that he must have been God.
You follow this with some talk of Mithraism (later Hercules), citing some similarities and thereby inferring that Christianity was cobbled together or plagiarized from surrounding pagan beliefs. But, simply put, similarity does not entail genealogy. Yes, when you look at isolated elements of the various mystery religions you can make them seem quite similar to isolated elements of Christianity. But nobody believes that Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions any more because there's no evidence beyond these trivial correlations. (Well, Robert Price still thinks there is such a connection, but he also thinks Jesus never existed. The point is that it's a fringe idea, certainly not the established scholarly consensus.) It would be a bit like saying that since the Eiffel Tower is important for battle scenes in both Rush Hour 3 and GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra, one must have plagiarized the other. Well, maybe, or maybe the Eiffel Tower is just an interesting, iconic thing. And maybe a virgin birth is an interesting, iconic thing. But more than that, to identify Chrisitanity with the mystery religions is to ignore the vast differences in their fundamental narrative logic. Christianity is about God coming to the world to make all things right with it; the mystery religions, disparate as they were, were about initiation into secret mysteries. Christianity circumscribed one's allegiance to the Empire; the mystery religions complemented it because they were other-worldly. To suggest that Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions is, then, not to explain where Christianity derived its fundamental character, which means that you haven't demonstrated plagiarism that is really fundamentally significant. (As with the divinity of Christ, if you look back into the reasons Christians were committed to the virgin birth of Jesus and the title "son of God" it really has nothing to do with one of the multiple stories of Mithras's origin or a title that was once applied to Hercules.) Again, this isn't scholarly consensus, and it's more speculation than established fact.
I've written so much at this point that I'd rather not talk too much about Constantine, but put frankly, there isn't a credible source for this. If you actually go back and read the works of the pre-Constantinian leaders, Constantine didn't change things (in the strong sense). Trinitarianism was being developed long before his time. Not long after Constantine's time, the (truly amazing) Emperor Julian the Apostate tried to rid the Empire of Christianity and restore paganism, but none of the people were interested in a pagan revival, so it certainly can't be said that Constantine was simply engaged in a political power play that did not reflect vast changes in the Empire that were already occurring without him.
Finally, no, Trinities were not abundant in Greek, Roman, and European pantheon religions. There were triads and such, but Trinitarianism was unique. It says that the Father is not the Son or Spirit, the Son
This only goes to show how much the Roman way of life was being assimilated into everyday life in Judea at the time. He may have 'thought' Juadaism, but he 'acted' Hellenistic. To a 'traditional' Jew like Simon bar Kochba, he'd be considered a traitor to his race.
Paul's influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author and Christianity is commonly said to owe as much to Paul as to Jesus.
Think about that for a moment.
That's quite a lot of influence for a person like Paul to have on Christianity, how did he become so influential? How on earth did Paul become a leader of Christianity along with James, the brother of Jesus, the man who's followers Paul persecuted, and eventualy userp James and take Christianity down a path that James himself disagreed with?
Methinks some strong arm tactics may have been in play. And why would that happen?
I'm thinking it's probably got something to do with power.
After his 'conversion' in Damascus, there's a period of his life that is a complete mystery. He surfaces here and there preaching the Gospel but soon disappears again. The next that we hear of him, he's one of a group of missionaries send out to the Gentiles, and who's the first Gentile we hear of that they convert? Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul of Paphos. From then on, Paul suddenly becomes 'very' influential.
But did he 'convert' Sergius Paulus or did he make a 'deal' with him? Because from then on, he became very powerful within Christianity and eventualy changed Christianity quite profundly from something quite traditionaly Jewish to something that could eventualy be adopted by the Roman Empire.
Christians were the most-persecuted religious group in the Empire up until Constantine's conversion. Anything that was a rehashing of Greek thought -- Gnosticism, mystery religions, etc. -- didn't bother the Empire. But Christianity -- whether the Christianity of the Gospels, the Christianity that got Jesus executed, or the Christianity of Paul (Horsley's collections are good on this, e.g. "Paul and Empire") -- was always subversive to the imperial order.
For that matter, I can't even think of a reason why a power political figure would want a new religion to "unite" the Empire, because they already had a civil religion in which every member of the Empire was required to participate. The Christians were often persecuted, in fact, because they refused to participate in this civil religion and were therefore subversive to the Empire's unity.
Again, then, this is not established scholarly consensus.
[quote]This only goes to show how much the Roman way of life was being assimilated into everyday life in Judea at the time. He may have 'thought' Juadaism, but he 'acted' Hellenistic. To a 'traditional' Jew like Simon bar Kochba, he'd be considered a traitor to his race.
Paul's influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author and Christianity is commonly said to owe as much to Paul as to Jesus.
Think about that for a moment.
That's quite a lot of influence for a person like Paul to have on Christianity, how did he become so influential? How on earth did Paul become a leader of Christianity along with James, the brother of Jesus, the man who's followers Paul persecuted, and eventualy userp James and take Christianity down a path that James himself disagreed with?
Methinks some strong arm tactics may have been in play. And why would that happen?
I'm thinking it's probably got something to do with power.
After his 'conversion' in Damascus, there's a period of his life that is a complete mystery. He surfaces here and there preaching the Gospel but soon disappears again. The next that we hear of him, he's one of a group of missionaries send out to the Gentiles, and who's the first Gentile we hear of that they convert? Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul of Paphos. From then on, Paul suddenly becomes 'very' influential.
But did he 'convert' Sergius Paulus or did he make a 'deal' with him? Because from then on, he became very powerful within Christianity and eventualy changed Christianity quite profundly from something quite traditionaly Jewish to something that could eventualy be adopted by the Roman Empire.[/quote] Christians were the most-persecuted religious group in the Empire up until Constantine's conversion. Anything that was a rehashing of Greek thought -- Gnosticism, mystery religions, etc. -- didn't bother the Empire. But Christianity -- whether the Christianity of the Gospels, the Christianity that got Jesus executed, or the Christianity of Paul (Horsley's collections are good on this, e.g. "Paul and Empire") -- was always subversive to the imperial order.
For that matter, I can't even think of a reason why a power political figure would [i]want[/i] a new religion to "unite" the Empire, because they already had a civil religion in which every member of the Empire was required to participate. The Christians were often persecuted, in fact, because they refused to participate in this civil religion and were therefore subversive to the Empire's unity.
Again, then, this is not established scholarly consensus.
Canaan had what is known as a 'Semitic Pantheon', similar but not quite the same as the other pantheons of the region. They shared many myths, such as the flood myth with a hero who is warned by the gods and told to build a boat, but in each version, the hero has a different name and there are slight differences here and there in the detail, but the point is, they all obviously follow different versions of the same story, which means there has to be a source religion that all these myths developed from.
I talk in general of these pantheons as a related group of religions, probably about as closely related as the three Abrahamic religions are today.
When we look closely at the Judaistic mythology, we see little elements of quite a few of these pantheons from the Fertile Cresent, the name of a God (El) from one, the cration of man from clay from another, parts of the flood story from several of them, and this makes perfect sense, because the main part of my claim is that the Hebrews were originaly the 'Habiru', who were several tribes of nomadic invaders who ranged from Northeastern Mesopotamia to the borders of Egypt in Canaan.
It is known from the Amarna letters, during the time that Atenism was in effect in Egypt, that these 'Habiru' were outcasts from many of the surrounding nations who had banded together and it is also known from the Armana letters that they constantly raided Canaan, in the same era that Judaistic history claims it's ancestors were doing the exact same thing. And this makes perfect sense because we see elements from the pantheons of several nations of the Fertile Cresent within Judaism's mythology.
We know that Atenism had 'some' influence on Judaism because of the remarkable similarity between 'The Great Hymn to the Aten' and 'Psalm 104', and because Atenism was monotheistic, it makes sense that this is where Judaism also assimilated that belief. It also makes sense that any Atenist outcasts would join up with the Habiru, themselves outcasts from their own respective nations.
The Biblical viewpoint is just one of many. If we take a step back and look at the overall picture, monotheism from Egypt, several myths from the varius related pantheons, the Habiru raiding Canaan and Judaism's own historical claims, a hypothesis starts to form about how it's all related.
I'm not saying this hypothesis is 100% correct in every single way, I've been working on it for a VERY long time and I'm still ironing out varius quirks, but I maintane that it's closer to the truth than purely the Judaistic or Christian versions alone.
I fully admit that the map isn't 100% accurate, it's simply a rough guide to give you a feel for the area from some vague time before Judaism and the Kingdom of Israel existed. (pre-1000 BC)
Obviously personal speculation isn't established scholarly consensus, so it's not necessary to reply to this in order to establish my case that you're not presenting established scholarly consensus.
[quote]Canaan had what is known as a 'Semitic Pantheon', similar but not quite the same as the other pantheons of the region. They shared many myths, such as the flood myth with a hero who is warned by the gods and told to build a boat, but in each version, the hero has a different name and there are slight differences here and there in the detail, but the point is, they all obviously follow different versions of the same story, which means there has to be a source religion that all these myths developed from.
I talk in general of these pantheons as a related group of religions, probably about as closely related as the three Abrahamic religions are today.
When we look closely at the Judaistic mythology, we see little elements of quite a few of these pantheons from the Fertile Cresent, the name of a God (El) from one, the cration of man from clay from another, parts of the flood story from several of them, and this makes perfect sense, because the main part of my claim is that the Hebrews were originaly the 'Habiru', who were several tribes of nomadic invaders who ranged from Northeastern Mesopotamia to the borders of Egypt in Canaan.
It is known from the Amarna letters, during the time that Atenism was in effect in Egypt, that these 'Habiru' were outcasts from many of the surrounding nations who had banded together and it is also known from the Armana letters that they constantly raided Canaan, in the same era that Judaistic history claims it's ancestors were doing the exact same thing. And this makes perfect sense because we see elements from the pantheons of several nations of the Fertile Cresent within Judaism's mythology.
We know that Atenism had 'some' influence on Judaism because of the remarkable similarity between 'The Great Hymn to the Aten' and 'Psalm 104', and because Atenism was monotheistic, it makes sense that this is where Judaism also assimilated that belief. It also makes sense that any Atenist outcasts would join up with the Habiru, themselves outcasts from their own respective nations.
The Biblical viewpoint is just one of many. If we take a step back and look at the overall picture, monotheism from Egypt, several myths from the varius related pantheons, the Habiru raiding Canaan and Judaism's own historical claims, a hypothesis starts to form about how it's all related.
I'm not saying this hypothesis is 100% correct in every single way, I've been working on it for a VERY long time and I'm still ironing out varius quirks, but I maintane that it's closer to the truth than purely the Judaistic or Christian versions alone.
I fully admit that the map isn't 100% accurate, it's simply a rough guide to give you a feel for the area from some vague time before Judaism and the Kingdom of Israel existed. (pre-1000 BC)[/quote] Obviously personal speculation isn't established scholarly consensus, so it's not necessary to reply to this in order to establish my case that you're not presenting established scholarly consensus.
'The Messiah will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with fear of God.'(Isaiah 11:2) 'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (like Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.' Those seem pretty blatent to me. 'Man of this world' means a 'man like any other man.' 'from among their brethren' obviously means that God will simply choose a human from among us ordinary mortals. 'like unto thee' in this context means 'like Moses' because this comes from a conversation between God and Moses, so when we put that together with 'from among their brethren' as the line is spoken, that suggests that the Messiah, like Moses, will be mortal. And both of these Messianic prophecies imply that the Messiah will be under God's command and fearful of God, rather than actualy being God himself.
We're starting to cover ground mentioned earlier, so I'll make this brief: Yes, Jesus was fully man. Fully man. Not a hybrid or a mixture. Not an angel. Not a Gnostic messenger. Not an archon. Jesus was a man. He was born. He grew in wisdom, knowledge, and virtue. He cried. He had fingernails. He wiped sweat from his forehead. He suffocated to death. He was (and is) fully human.
If Jesus really died then came back to life of his own accord, then he can hardly be considered as 'mortal' or, to put it another way, if Jesus is God then he can hardly be considered as a mortal.
Jesus did not come back to life of his own accord; the Father raised him by the Spirit. Similarly, since Jesus died, clearly we can't deny his mortality.
This issue, I think, is at the heart of the confusion that the Jesus Seminar has: For them, you must be God or man, or some mixture of the two. But for historic Christianity -- for Chalcedon -- Jesus was God and man. The world we understand to be shaped by the Incarnation has a fundamentally different look than the modern Hellenistic vacillations between dualism and monism. (This, incidentally, is an excellent example of where Paul's theology was unquestionably not Hellenistic, because he was so basically incarnational.)
[quote]'The Messiah will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with fear of God.'(Isaiah 11:2) 'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (like Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.' Those seem pretty blatent to me. 'Man of this world' means a 'man like any other man.' 'from among their brethren' obviously means that God will simply choose a human from among us ordinary mortals. 'like unto thee' in this context means 'like Moses' because this comes from a conversation between God and Moses, so when we put that together with 'from among their brethren' as the line is spoken, that suggests that the Messiah, like Moses, will be mortal. And both of these Messianic prophecies imply that the Messiah will be under God's command and fearful of God, rather than actualy being God himself.[/quote] We're starting to cover ground mentioned earlier, so I'll make this brief: Yes, Jesus was fully man. [i]Fully[/i] man. Not a hybrid or a mixture. Not an angel. Not a Gnostic messenger. Not an archon. Jesus was a man. He was born. He grew in wisdom, knowledge, and virtue. He cried. He had fingernails. He wiped sweat from his forehead. He suffocated to death. He was (and is) fully human.
[quote]If Jesus really died then came back to life of his own accord, then he can hardly be considered as 'mortal' or, to put it another way, if Jesus is God then he can hardly be considered as a mortal.[/quote] Jesus did not come back to life of his own accord; the Father raised him by the Spirit. Similarly, since Jesus died, clearly we can't deny his mortality.
This issue, I think, is at the heart of the confusion that the Jesus Seminar has: For them, you must be God or man, or some mixture of the two. But for historic Christianity -- for Chalcedon -- Jesus was God [i]and[/i] man. The world we understand to be shaped by the Incarnation has a fundamentally different look than the modern Hellenistic vacillations between dualism and monism. (This, incidentally, is an excellent example of where Paul's theology was unquestionably [i]not[/i] Hellenistic, because he was so basically incarnational.)
OK guys, I'd like your opinion on this concerning the virgin birth.
Have a look at this Messianic prophecy; "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
...but this version was changed from the original Hebrew version.
Hebrew has a specific word, 'betulah', for a virgin, and a more general word, 'almah', for a young woman. Since 'almah' is the word used in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, it's quite apparent that what Isaiah had in mind was a normal conception by a young mother. But when it was translated into Greek (in the Septuagint, which was translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.) 'almah' (young woman) became the Greek 'parthenos.' (virgin)
Then later, along came the Christian Gospel writers, who read and wrote in Greek, and claimed that Jesus was born to a virgin, obviously to make it look like this prophecy (which was a false prophecy due to the mistranslation) had been fulfilled. Which to me proves that the Gospel writers made untrue claims, which Christianity has subsequently regarded as true.
Example, there is a program in the UK called 'Most Haunted' where this team of people investigate haunted sites, they usualy have a guest psychic and a guest sceptic. One such guest psychic on the program was Derek Acorah, (well known for becoming possesed by evil entities and attacking peaople) who was actualy famously exposed as a fraud by their sceptic, a parapsychologist called Dr. Ciaran O' Keeffe. Acorah had been fed disinformation twice about the non-existent ghosts of 'Kreed Kafer' and 'Rik Eedles' by O' Keeffe. (O'Keeffe later revealed that 'Kreed Kafer' and 'Rik Eedles' were anagrams of 'Derek Faker' and 'Derek Lies')
During the televised program, Derek Acorah apparently became 'possessed' by these completely fictional ghosts.
The case of the virgin birth in Christianity is exactly the same thing, the Gospel writers, like Derek Acorah, were (accidently) fed disinformation, which they then claimed as true.
Not really. If you go back and read the context in which it is quoted (i.e., the early chapters of Matthew), it's clear that the author didn't understand any of the "fulfilled prophecies" that he quoted to be literally referring to Jesus. They were all seen as typologically referring to Jesus. So, for instance, he quotes "Out of Egypt I have called my son," which is clearly referring to Israel. Matthew isn't some idiot who got every single prophecy in a row wrong -- perhaps one error we might understand, but when every single quotation in a row seems to be in error we have to wonder whether we're bringing false expectations to the text. And that is the case. Obviously 'almah' doesn't specify a virgin; it is, in fact, a very broad term. But Matthew is drawing together themes from the Old Testament in his narrative, rather than saying, "Look, here's what the Scriptures say and Jesus fulfills them word-for-word!"
[quote]OK guys, I'd like your opinion on this concerning the virgin birth.
Have a look at this Messianic prophecy; "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
...but this version was changed from the original Hebrew version.
Hebrew has a specific word, 'betulah', for a virgin, and a more general word, 'almah', for a young woman. Since 'almah' is the word used in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, it's quite apparent that what Isaiah had in mind was a normal conception by a young mother. But when it was translated into Greek (in the Septuagint, which was translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.) 'almah' (young woman) became the Greek 'parthenos.' (virgin)
Then later, along came the Christian Gospel writers, who read and wrote in Greek, and claimed that Jesus was born to a virgin, obviously to make it look like this prophecy (which was a false prophecy due to the mistranslation) had been fulfilled. Which to me proves that the Gospel writers made untrue claims, which Christianity has subsequently regarded as true.
Example, there is a program in the UK called 'Most Haunted' where this team of people investigate haunted sites, they usualy have a guest psychic and a guest sceptic. One such guest psychic on the program was Derek Acorah, (well known for becoming possesed by evil entities and attacking peaople) who was actualy famously exposed as a fraud by their sceptic, a parapsychologist called Dr. Ciaran O' Keeffe. Acorah had been fed disinformation twice about the non-existent ghosts of 'Kreed Kafer' and 'Rik Eedles' by O' Keeffe. (O'Keeffe later revealed that 'Kreed Kafer' and 'Rik Eedles' were anagrams of 'Derek Faker' and 'Derek Lies')
During the televised program, Derek Acorah apparently became 'possessed' by these completely fictional ghosts.
The case of the virgin birth in Christianity is exactly the same thing, the Gospel writers, like Derek Acorah, were (accidently) fed disinformation, which they then claimed as true.[/quote] Not really. If you go back and read the context in which it is quoted (i.e., the early chapters of Matthew), it's clear that the author didn't understand any of the "fulfilled prophecies" that he quoted to be literally referring to Jesus. They were all seen as typologically referring to Jesus. So, for instance, he quotes "Out of Egypt I have called my son," which is clearly referring to Israel. Matthew isn't some idiot who got every single prophecy in a row wrong -- perhaps one error we might understand, but when every single quotation in a row seems to be in error we have to wonder whether we're bringing false expectations to the text. And that is the case. Obviously 'almah' doesn't specify a virgin; it is, in fact, a very broad term. But Matthew is drawing together themes from the Old Testament in his narrative, rather than saying, "Look, here's what the Scriptures say and Jesus fulfills them word-for-word!"
Jesus being the 'son' of God would have been naturaly attractive to people from the Hellenistic religions, who worshipped demi-gods (offspring of a God and a mortal) like Herculese and as far as I know, there are no Messianic prophecies that claim that the Messiah would actualy 'be' the 'Son of God'. Also just before Christianity appeared, Mithra worship was very popular, and Mithra was said to have been born to a virgin There is a Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran, which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra" and dates to around 200 BC.
So much of it could be down to attempts to attract converts from other religions, in a similar way to Constantine's Christianity adopting Pagan winter festival traditions and re-naming them as Christmas and the Pagan notion of trinities so that it would make it easier to convert Pagans. After all, Paul was a Hellenistic Jew and it was he who opened up Christianity to the gentiles, essentialy, people from other religions.
Again we're retracing ground, but earlier I said we might investigate the logic behind "Son of God" and "Virgin Birth" and here we have an opportunity.
In the New Testament, the point of calling Jesus the "Son of God" is not to say that he is divine but rather to say that he is taking up the mantle from Israel, who previously had been called "Son of God." Jesus is the culmination of Israel, it is saying. No need to try to fit it into muddled Greek boxes.
The Virgin Birth, likewise, was saying that God was taking initiative. It was not about purity or some such. (And you should note that, so far as we know, at the time it was more popularly believed that Mithra emerged from solid rock as an adult; the centuries-old Temple inscription is our main clue that anybody understood Mithra as virgin-born.)
Yeah, but is belief in the virgin birth actualy 'needed' in order to be a Christian? After all there are so many other things that Christians used to believe that they no longer believe, such as that God created us directly from clay, now there are relatively few who actualy believe that over evolution which has pretty much proven that we evolved from an apelike ancestor.
Well, that's a sort of category confusion, as (thankfully) the Bible has a richer thought world behind it than the rigid mechanistic categories of evolutionary science. Whatever the case, the Virgin Birth is part of the creeds for a reason, so I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. Of course the so-called Modernists thought of the Virgin Birth as the first thing that had to go, the foothold they could use to plant their wedge, but the creeds are a bit too strong for them.
--------------
At any rate, I hope to have established one thing: That you are not delivering established, scholarly consensus. These are largely personal thoughts fueled by some interactions with perhaps some scholarly work. While I have no problem with personal thoughts -- and in fact welcome them! -- that means that you're not presenting us with "the historic truth as we know it." And if that is the case then on these grounds we can't be said to be willfully ignorant or anti-rational.
[quote]Jesus being the 'son' of God would have been naturaly attractive to people from the Hellenistic religions, who worshipped demi-gods (offspring of a God and a mortal) like Herculese and as far as I know, there are no Messianic prophecies that claim that the Messiah would actualy 'be' the 'Son of God'. Also just before Christianity appeared, Mithra worship was very popular, and Mithra was said to have been born to a virgin There is a Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran, which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra" and dates to around 200 BC.
So much of it could be down to attempts to attract converts from other religions, in a similar way to Constantine's Christianity adopting Pagan winter festival traditions and re-naming them as Christmas and the Pagan notion of trinities so that it would make it easier to convert Pagans. After all, Paul was a Hellenistic Jew and it was he who opened up Christianity to the gentiles, essentialy, people from other religions.[/quote] Again we're retracing ground, but earlier I said we might investigate the logic behind "Son of God" and "Virgin Birth" and here we have an opportunity.
In the New Testament, the point of calling Jesus the "Son of God" is not to say that he is divine but rather to say that he is taking up the mantle from Israel, who previously had been called "Son of God." Jesus is the culmination of Israel, it is saying. No need to try to fit it into muddled Greek boxes.
The Virgin Birth, likewise, was saying that God was taking initiative. It was not about purity or some such. (And you should note that, so far as we know, at the time it was more popularly believed that Mithra emerged from solid rock as an adult; the centuries-old Temple inscription is our main clue that anybody understood Mithra as virgin-born.)
[quote]Yeah, but is belief in the virgin birth actualy 'needed' in order to be a Christian? After all there are so many other things that Christians used to believe that they no longer believe, such as that God created us directly from clay, now there are relatively few who actualy believe that over evolution which has pretty much proven that we evolved from an apelike ancestor.[/quote] Well, that's a sort of category confusion, as (thankfully) the Bible has a richer thought world behind it than the rigid mechanistic categories of evolutionary science. Whatever the case, the Virgin Birth is part of the creeds for a reason, so I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. Of course the so-called Modernists thought of the Virgin Birth as the first thing that had to go, the foothold they could use to plant their wedge, but the creeds are a bit too strong for them.
--------------
At any rate, I hope to have established one thing: That you are not delivering established, scholarly consensus. These are largely personal thoughts fueled by some interactions with perhaps some scholarly work. While I have no problem with personal thoughts -- and in fact welcome them! -- that means that you're not presenting us with "the historic truth as we know it." And if that is the case then on these grounds we can't be said to be willfully ignorant or anti-rational.
Firstly, hello, and thanks for your kind comments at the beginning of this epic of a post, it really is appreciated and I am likewise very pleased to meet you.
Let me tell you a little about myself, I'm a 42 year old history nut, I've been seriously studying history, particularly ancient history and many different religious histories, for about 25 years.
I probably won't have time to go through all your points today but first off, I notice you keep mentioning that my views are not that of scholarly consensus, and feel I must first clear up a question in order to answer you correctly. Which scholarly group are you referring to? Christian scholars or general historical scholars? There are after all many scholars of Judaism that completely disagree with with the findings of Christian scholars.
Also, please be aware that nowhere do I (purposly) claim to have any definitive proof on any of my comments, yes, quite a lot of it is my personal thoughts on the subjects but they are based on the findings of several different historical and scholarly sources and trying to find the best way that they can fit together to get some form of corroboration, which, in my opinion, is the nearest that we can get to 'truth'.
Like the point I made in my post just a couple of posts before your first post about dating the Garden of Eden. We know where Eden roughy was because of the Bible, we can date a garden that is watered by the Euphrates and Tigris by dating the earliest sediments to be laid down in these rivers. (roughly 8000 years ago) Because Adam and Eve were created in the garden, then that also gives us an earliest date for them existing. The Ussher chronology, based on the Biblical texts, dates their existence to around 6000 years ago. Archeology dates the earliest settled agriculture to some time in between, around 7000 years ago, and because the words 'garden' and 'paradise' (which is often used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden and actualy shares a number of characteristics with words for 'walled orchard garden' or 'enclosed hunting park' in ancient Persian) both suggest agriculture, so I think it's reasonable to assume that rather than the story of Adam and Eve being the story of the very first man and woman (because homo sapiens has been dated to around 200,000 years old) it is more than likely a story about the Neolithic Revolution and possibly it's effects on religion.
This conclusion comes as a result of the corroboration of Biblical sources, history, geology and archeology.
Most of my main arguments work in the same (or a very similar) way. Like the argument I make on the formation of Judaism, that includes Atenism, a pantheon with a god named 'El' as it's head deity and the Habiru eventualy becoming the Hebrews, which you skipped over, it's a result of finding corroboration between different areas of study, which include Biblical sources, other sources of history from the time and archeology. After all, 'history is written by the victors' as they say, so it's hard to get an unbiased view of history from one single source, especialy a religious source, but several corroborating sources will generaly get you nearer the truth.
That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be true, but in my opinion it makes it the most likeliest scenario.
Stanley151
Firstly, hello, and thanks for your kind comments at the beginning of this epic of a post, it really is appreciated and I am likewise very pleased to meet you.
Let me tell you a little about myself, I'm a 42 year old history nut, I've been seriously studying history, particularly ancient history and many different religious histories, for about 25 years.
I probably won't have time to go through all your points today but first off, I notice you keep mentioning that my views are not that of scholarly consensus, and feel I must first clear up a question in order to answer you correctly. Which scholarly group are you referring to? Christian scholars or general historical scholars? There are after all many scholars of Judaism that completely disagree with with the findings of Christian scholars.
Also, please be aware that nowhere do I (purposly) claim to have any definitive proof on any of my comments, yes, quite a lot of it is my personal thoughts on the subjects but they are based on the findings of several different historical and scholarly sources and trying to find the best way that they can fit together to get some form of corroboration, which, in my opinion, is the nearest that we can get to 'truth'.
Like the point I made in my post just a couple of posts before your first post about dating the Garden of Eden. We know where Eden roughy was because of the Bible, we can date a garden that is watered by the Euphrates and Tigris by dating the earliest sediments to be laid down in these rivers. (roughly 8000 years ago) Because Adam and Eve were created in the garden, then that also gives us an earliest date for them existing. The Ussher chronology, based on the Biblical texts, dates their existence to around 6000 years ago. Archeology dates the earliest settled agriculture to some time in between, around 7000 years ago, and because the words 'garden' and 'paradise' (which is often used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden and actualy shares a number of characteristics with words for 'walled orchard garden' or 'enclosed hunting park' in ancient Persian) both suggest agriculture, so I think it's reasonable to assume that rather than the story of Adam and Eve being the story of the very first man and woman (because homo sapiens has been dated to around 200,000 years old) it is more than likely a story about the Neolithic Revolution and possibly it's effects on religion.
This conclusion comes as a result of the corroboration of Biblical sources, history, geology and archeology.
Most of my main arguments work in the same (or a very similar) way. Like the argument I make on the formation of Judaism, that includes Atenism, a pantheon with a god named 'El' as it's head deity and the Habiru eventualy becoming the Hebrews, which you skipped over, it's a result of finding corroboration between different areas of study, which include Biblical sources, other sources of history from the time and archeology. After all, 'history is written by the victors' as they say, so it's hard to get an unbiased view of history from one single source, especialy a religious source, but several corroborating sources will generaly get you nearer the truth.
That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be true, but in my opinion it makes it the most likeliest scenario.
I know this is the Christian forum, so cussing is kinda taboo
but damn.... i never thought Slacker would be beat in post size...but...wow...
ok, anyway. i'm going to do the same thing as Slacker, and say, which scholars are YOU pulling from. From what i've been taught at college (Furman University, that has a very legit religion department and is a highly accredited school) a VERY large portion of what Slacker has said is basically in consensus with what is assumed to be the basic scholarly consensus not only by my professors, but also by my text books.
however, as you pointed out, all this hinges on how one interprets what's there. i'm a Christian, so obviously i don't agree with Slacker's understanding. All we can do though is read the history for ourselves from our own perspectives and attempt to understand that of others.
on that note, WELCOME TO THE FORUM! please hang around, even though I might not agree with you, having another person who understands historical interpretation of the Bible will be great, and besides, your not an asshole, which is a rarity in almost any religious forum, Christian or not.
I know this is the Christian forum, so cussing is kinda taboo
but damn.... i never thought Slacker would be beat in post size...but...wow...
ok, anyway. i'm going to do the same thing as Slacker, and say, which scholars are YOU pulling from. From what i've been taught at college (Furman University, that has a very legit religion department and is a highly accredited school) a VERY large portion of what Slacker has said is basically in consensus with what is assumed to be the basic scholarly consensus not only by my professors, but also by my text books.
however, as you pointed out, all this hinges on how one interprets what's there. i'm a Christian, so obviously i don't agree with Slacker's understanding. All we can do though is read the history for ourselves from our own perspectives and attempt to understand that of others.
on that note, WELCOME TO THE FORUM! please hang around, even though I might not agree with you, having another person who understands historical interpretation of the Bible will be great, and besides, your not an asshole, which is a rarity in almost any religious forum, Christian or not.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : ok, anyway. i'm going to do the same thing as Slacker, and say, which scholars are YOU pulling from. From what i've been taught at college (Furman University, that has a very legit religion department and is a highly accredited school) a VERY large portion of what Slacker has said is basically in consensus with what is assumed to be the basic scholarly consensus not only by my professors, but also by my text books.<br> <br> however, as you pointed out, all this hinges on how one interprets what's there. i'm a Christian, so obviously i don't agree with Slacker's understanding. All we can do though is read the history for ourselves from our own perspectives and attempt to understand that of others.
Thanks for that.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : your not an asshole, which is a rarity in almost any religious forum, Christian or not.
It's interesting that Stanley151 used the phrase 'you're not a "total" asshole'. when addressing me. I'm not sure if that was done intentionaly or not but it's actualy a way of calling someone an asshole without it actualy sounding like you have.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-22 19:16:37'] ok, anyway. i'm going to do the same thing as Slacker, and say, which scholars are YOU pulling from. From what i've been taught at college (Furman University, that has a very legit religion department and is a highly accredited school) a VERY large portion of what Slacker has said is basically in consensus with what is assumed to be the basic scholarly consensus not only by my professors, but also by my text books.<br> <br> however, as you pointed out, all this hinges on how one interprets what's there. i'm a Christian, so obviously i don't agree with Slacker's understanding. All we can do though is read the history for ourselves from our own perspectives and attempt to understand that of others.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that. :cheers:
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : your not an asshole, which is a rarity in almost any religious forum, Christian or not.
It's interesting that Stanley151 used the phrase 'you're not a "total" asshole'. when addressing me. I'm not sure if that was done intentionaly or not but it's actualy a way of calling someone an asshole without it actualy sounding like you have.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 4:49am :
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : your not an asshole, which is a rarity in almost any religious forum, Christian or not.
It's interesting that Stanley151 used the phrase 'you're not a "total" asshole'. when addressing me. I'm not sure if that was done intentionaly or not but it's actualy a way of calling someone an asshole without it actualy sounding like you have.
No, it's not. You're not an asshole at all. My facebook is full of links to the bile from Richard Dawkins and infidels.org -- Read either of those sites for ten seconds and suddenly you'll think that not only are you the most intelligent person on the planet, but also the most charitable.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 4:49am :
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : your not an asshole, which is a rarity in almost any religious forum, Christian or not.
It's interesting that Stanley151 used the phrase 'you're not a "total" asshole'. when addressing me. I'm not sure if that was done intentionaly or not but it's actualy a way of calling someone an asshole without it actualy sounding like you have.
No, it's not. You're not an asshole at all. My facebook is full of links to the bile from Richard Dawkins and infidels.org -- Read either of those sites for ten seconds and suddenly you'll think that not only are you the most intelligent person on the planet, but also the most charitable.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : I know this is the Christian forum, so cussing is kinda taboo
but damn.... i never thought Slacker would be beat in post size...but...wow...
Oops. I guess I forgot about the "cussing" taboo. That kind of thing isn't even on my radar. I'll try to keep it down haha.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : ok, anyway. i'm going to do the same thing as Slacker, and say, which scholars are YOU pulling from. From what i've been taught at college (Furman University, that has a very legit religion department and is a highly accredited school) a VERY large portion of what Slacker has said is basically in consensus with what is assumed to be the basic scholarly consensus not only by my professors, but also by my text books.
I mentioned a few along the way. For instance, Jonathan Riley-Smith is the hands-down world's finest scholar of the Crusades. Netanyahu and Kamen are top-echelon sources on the Spanish Inquisition. To my knowledge Horsley's anthologies on the Bible and Empire are the most concentrated out there, and he collects works from across the top scholars. I also tried to mention potential dissenters, like Borg and Price.
In terms of NT Introduction I use Bart Ehrman and Raymond Brown, but unfortunately don't have Achtemeier. Then of course there are plenty of standard monographs -- Segal, Meeks, etc.
Some Jesus scholarship would be: The obvious like Schweitzer, Reimarus, and Lessing, but more recently Bornkamm, Fredriksen, Ludemann, Pelikan, Crossan, Borg, Wright, Meier, and Sanders.
The first place to turn on the Gnostics is, of course, Pagels. There are a variety of sources on the mystery religions, obviously, and the only one that sticks out in my mind at the moment is Merkelbach.
For OT Introduction I've got Brueggemann (and several of his monographs, of course), Childs, Von Rad, and Eissfeldt.
I assume I don't need a source on what the creeds say -- I'd stick with Schaff, FWIW.
Slacker has said some things that resonate with contemporary scholarship, no doubt, and I more than admit this. Moreover, there exist scholars who are in agreement with him on many major points. But that is different from a consensus. As I mentioned, Robert Price still thinks Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions, but he's a fringe scholar and not a representative of a consensus. On the other hand, there is a consensus that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles.
And what about Furman? Well, I haven't been to your school and met your faculty, but I can say a few things. First, of course, resonance and agreement are two different things; I might call Jesus a Mediterranean peasant and it would evoke images of Dom Crossan, but then I might not really be in fundamental agreement with him. Second, in a place like Greenville, SC, what will be heard from (and probably taught by) professors will be pushed to the extreme by controversial surroundings. Third, of course there will exist scholars who are either old or clinging to what is old and therefore will teach things that do not represent contemporary scholarly consensus. For instance, I remember one professor tubthumping about how he was going to trust "history, not faith," as if his positivist epistemology hadn't become outmoded 50 years ago. As a philosophy student it was all I could do not to laugh, because my epistemology professors certainly would have!
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm :
If we can't cuss, can we still drink? If so,
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : I know this is the Christian forum, so cussing is kinda taboo
but damn.... i never thought Slacker would be beat in post size...but...wow...
Oops. I guess I forgot about the "cussing" taboo. That kind of thing isn't even on my radar. I'll try to keep it down haha.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm : ok, anyway. i'm going to do the same thing as Slacker, and say, which scholars are YOU pulling from. From what i've been taught at college (Furman University, that has a very legit religion department and is a highly accredited school) a VERY large portion of what Slacker has said is basically in consensus with what is assumed to be the basic scholarly consensus not only by my professors, but also by my text books.
I mentioned a few along the way. For instance, Jonathan Riley-Smith is the hands-down world's finest scholar of the Crusades. Netanyahu and Kamen are top-echelon sources on the Spanish Inquisition. To my knowledge Horsley's anthologies on the Bible and Empire are the most concentrated out there, and he collects works from across the top scholars. I also tried to mention potential dissenters, like Borg and Price.
In terms of NT Introduction I use Bart Ehrman and Raymond Brown, but unfortunately don't have Achtemeier. Then of course there are plenty of standard monographs -- Segal, Meeks, etc.
Some Jesus scholarship would be: The obvious like Schweitzer, Reimarus, and Lessing, but more recently Bornkamm, Fredriksen, Ludemann, Pelikan, Crossan, Borg, Wright, Meier, and Sanders.
The first place to turn on the Gnostics is, of course, Pagels. There are a variety of sources on the mystery religions, obviously, and the only one that sticks out in my mind at the moment is Merkelbach.
For OT Introduction I've got Brueggemann (and several of his monographs, of course), Childs, Von Rad, and Eissfeldt.
I assume I don't need a source on what the creeds say -- I'd stick with Schaff, FWIW.
Slacker has said some things that resonate with contemporary scholarship, no doubt, and I more than admit this. Moreover, there exist scholars who are in agreement with him on many major points. But that is different from a consensus. As I mentioned, Robert Price still thinks Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions, but he's a fringe scholar and not a representative of a consensus. On the other hand, there is a consensus that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles.
And what about Furman? Well, I haven't been to your school and met your faculty, but I can say a few things. First, of course, resonance and agreement are two different things; I might call Jesus a Mediterranean peasant and it would evoke images of Dom Crossan, but then I might not really be in fundamental agreement with him. Second, in a place like Greenville, SC, what will be heard from (and probably taught by) professors will be pushed to the extreme by controversial surroundings. Third, of course there will exist scholars who are either old or clinging to what is old and therefore will teach things that do not represent contemporary scholarly consensus. For instance, I remember one professor tubthumping about how he was going to trust "history, not faith," as if his positivist epistemology hadn't become outmoded 50 years ago. As a philosophy student it was all I could do not to laugh, because my epistemology professors certainly would have!
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:16pm :
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 8:19am : Let me tell you a little about myself, I'm a 42 year old history nut, I've been seriously studying history, particularly ancient history and many different religious histories, for about 25 years.
I probably won't have time to go through all your points today but first off, I notice you keep mentioning that my views are not that of scholarly consensus, and feel I must first clear up a question in order to answer you correctly. Which scholarly group are you referring to? Christian scholars or general historical scholars? There are after all many scholars of Judaism that completely disagree with with the findings of Christian scholars.
Just, scholars. Though really most scholars of religion are in some way members of a religion. For instance, I mentioned Robert Price earlier, who believes Jesus never existed -- but he is an Episcopalian as well. So it would be tough to say that "religious people" of some stripe don't constitute a decent majority of religious scholars.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 8:19am : Also, please be aware that nowhere do I (purposly) claim to have any definitive proof on any of my comments, yes, quite a lot of it is my personal thoughts on the subjects but they are based on the findings of several different historical and scholarly sources and trying to find the best way that they can fit together to get some form of corroboration, which, in my opinion, is the nearest that we can get to 'truth'.
Maybe "the historical truth as we know it" was a slip of the tongue, then. To me it seemed like a broad rubric under which to understand the rest of what you had written.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 8:19am : Like the point I made in my post just a couple of posts before your first post about dating the Garden of Eden.
I didn't make a post about dating the Garden of Eden, but I do see why you're bringing this up.
For that matter, I would be unlikely to "date" anyone other than my wife..............
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 8:19am : We know where Eden roughy was because of the Bible, we can date a garden that is watered by the Euphrates and Tigris by dating the earliest sediments to be laid down in these rivers. (roughly 8000 years ago) Because Adam and Eve were created in the garden, then that also gives us an earliest date for them existing. The Ussher chronology, based on the Biblical texts, dates their existence to around 6000 years ago. Archeology dates the earliest settled agriculture to some time in between, around 7000 years ago, and because the words 'garden' and 'paradise' (which is often used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden and actualy shares a number of characteristics with words for 'walled orchard garden' or 'enclosed hunting park' in ancient Persian) both suggest agriculture, so I think it's reasonable to assume that rather than the story of Adam and Eve being the story of the very first man and woman (because homo sapiens has been dated to around 200,000 years old) it is more than likely a story about the Neolithic Revolution and possibly it's effects on religion.
This conclusion comes as a result of the corroboration of Biblical sources, history, geology and archeology.
Most of my main arguments work in the same (or a very similar) way. Like the argument I make on the formation of Judaism, that includes Atenism, a pantheon with a god named 'El' as it's head deity and the Habiru eventualy becoming the Hebrews, which you skipped over, it's a result of finding corroboration between different areas of study, which include Biblical sources, other sources of history from the time and archeology. After all, 'history is written by the victors' as they say, so it's hard to get an unbiased view of history from one single source, especialy a religious source, but several corroborating sources will generaly get you nearer the truth.
That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be true, but in my opinion it makes it the most likeliest scenario.
Everything in this quote implies that you're engaging in personal scholarship, not drawing from a scholarly consensus, and therefore we're talking more about your hypotheses than "the historic truth as we know it," because there is no "we." I'm not saying you can't discuss your personal hypotheses, of course. I'm just saying that personal hypotheses -- whether your or mine or whatever -- can never be "the historic truth as we know it."
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-22 08:19:41']Let me tell you a little about myself, I'm a 42 year old history nut, I've been seriously studying history, particularly ancient history and many different religious histories, for about 25 years.
I probably won't have time to go through all your points today but first off, I notice you keep mentioning that my views are not that of scholarly consensus, and feel I must first clear up a question in order to answer you correctly. Which scholarly group are you referring to? Christian scholars or general historical scholars? There are after all many scholars of Judaism that completely disagree with with the findings of Christian scholars.[/quote] Just, scholars. Though really most scholars of religion are in some way members of a religion. For instance, I mentioned Robert Price earlier, who believes Jesus never existed -- but he is an Episcopalian as well. So it would be tough to say that "religious people" of some stripe don't constitute a decent majority of religious scholars.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-22 08:19:41']Also, please be aware that nowhere do I (purposly) claim to have any definitive proof on any of my comments, yes, quite a lot of it is my personal thoughts on the subjects but they are based on the findings of several different historical and scholarly sources and trying to find the best way that they can fit together to get some form of corroboration, which, in my opinion, is the nearest that we can get to 'truth'.[/quote] Maybe "the historical truth as we know it" was a slip of the tongue, then. To me it seemed like a broad rubric under which to understand the rest of what you had written.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-22 08:19:41']Like the point I made in my post just a couple of posts before your first post about dating the Garden of Eden.[/quote] I didn't make a post about dating the Garden of Eden, but I do see why you're bringing this up.
For that matter, I would be unlikely to "date" anyone other than my wife..............
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-22 08:19:41']We know where Eden roughy was because of the Bible, we can date a garden that is watered by the Euphrates and Tigris by dating the earliest sediments to be laid down in these rivers. (roughly 8000 years ago) Because Adam and Eve were created in the garden, then that also gives us an earliest date for them existing. The Ussher chronology, based on the Biblical texts, dates their existence to around 6000 years ago. Archeology dates the earliest settled agriculture to some time in between, around 7000 years ago, and because the words 'garden' and 'paradise' (which is often used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden and actualy shares a number of characteristics with words for 'walled orchard garden' or 'enclosed hunting park' in ancient Persian) both suggest agriculture, so I think it's reasonable to assume that rather than the story of Adam and Eve being the story of the very first man and woman (because homo sapiens has been dated to around 200,000 years old) it is more than likely a story about the Neolithic Revolution and possibly it's effects on religion.
This conclusion comes as a result of the corroboration of Biblical sources, history, geology and archeology.
Most of my main arguments work in the same (or a very similar) way. Like the argument I make on the formation of Judaism, that includes Atenism, a pantheon with a god named 'El' as it's head deity and the Habiru eventualy becoming the Hebrews, which you skipped over, it's a result of finding corroboration between different areas of study, which include Biblical sources, other sources of history from the time and archeology. After all, 'history is written by the victors' as they say, so it's hard to get an unbiased view of history from one single source, especialy a religious source, but several corroborating sources will generaly get you nearer the truth.
That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be true, but in my opinion it makes it the most likeliest scenario.[/quote] Everything in this quote implies that you're engaging in personal scholarship, not drawing from a scholarly consensus, and therefore we're talking more about your hypotheses than "the historic truth as we know it," because there is no "we." I'm not saying you can't discuss your personal hypotheses, of course. I'm just saying that personal hypotheses -- whether your or mine or whatever -- can never be "the historic truth as we know it."
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 8:55am : No, it's not. You're not an asshole at all. My facebook is full of links to the bile from Richard Dawkins and infidels.org -- Read either of those sites for ten seconds and suddenly you'll think that not only are you the most intelligent person on the planet, but also the most charitable.
Ahh, unintentional then. Personaly I prefer, whenever possible to go to the nearest to 'first hand' sources as I can get, for instance on the Crusades, I like to refer to Bahā' ad-Dīn ibn Shaddād who witnessed the truly awful 'Acre massacre' carried out by Ritchard the Lionheart in the name of Christianity.
On the career of Quirinius, I refer to probably the the greatest source of Roman history (because he was known to write from official Roman documents) from that era, Tacitus.
Infact, Tacitus is the reason that I actualy believe that Jesus was a real person, because even though Tacitus only mentions him very briefly while explaining who the Christians were and that the originator was killed by the Romans, (and actualy calls him 'Christus' rather than Jesus) it is very highly likely that he got this information from an official Roman report of the crucifixion, probably from Pilate.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 8:55am : Slacker has said some things that resonate with contemporary scholarship, no doubt, and I more than admit this. Moreover, there exist scholars who are in agreement with him on many major points. But that is different from a consensus. As I mentioned, Robert Price still thinks Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions, but he's a fringe scholar and not a representative of a consensus. On the other hand, there is a consensus that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles.
There is actualy very little real concensus among scholars, they each have slightly differing views and slightly different ways of interpreting things. For instance, if you were to class the Gospel writers as the original Christian scholars, even they disagree to a cirtain degree.
For every scholarly point made by anyone, there will inevitably be a consensus that agrees and a different concensus that disagrees.
So how are we to find truth in amongst all that scholarly in-fighting? By trying to find corroboration with as many historical sources as we can find plus archeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, ect, ect.
As I said earlier, we have no way of knowing if that actualy gives us the 'real' truth or not, short of constructing a time machine, but the logic behind the technique is sound. It's basicaly done in the same way that detectives solve crimes, look at ALL the evidence available, see which parts corroborate, and it's quite likely that your resulting data is something close to the real events.
Take the flood myth for example. You can read the account in Genesis and completely believe that it's completely true, or you can read the earlier Babylonian version found in the Epic of Gilgamesh or even earlier Sumerian version, compare them, find corroborations like; "I opened the window" Gilgamesh XI,135 "Noah opened the window of the ark" Genesis 8:6
"The dove went out and returned" Gilgamesh XI,147 "sent forth the dove and the dove came back to him" Genesis 8:10b-11
"I sent forth a raven" Gilgamesh XI,152 "Noah... sent forth a raven" Genesis 8:7
"The gods smelled the sweet savor" Gilgamesh XI,160 "And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." Genesis 8:21
"On Mount Nisir the boat grounded" Gilgamesh XI,140 "the ark came to rest upon the mountains" Genesis 8:4
"The cattle of the field, the beast of the plain" Gilgamesh XI,85 "clean animals and of animals that are not clean" Genesis 7:8
"into the ship all my family and relatives" Gilgamesh XI,84 "Go into the ark, you and all your household" Genesis 7:1
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 8:55am : No, it's not. You're not an asshole at all. My facebook is full of links to the bile from Richard Dawkins and infidels.org -- Read either of those sites for ten seconds and suddenly you'll think that not only are you the most intelligent person on the planet, but also the most charitable.
Ahh, unintentional then. Personaly I prefer, whenever possible to go to the nearest to 'first hand' sources as I can get, for instance on the Crusades, I like to refer to Bahā' ad-Dīn ibn Shaddād who witnessed the truly awful 'Acre massacre' carried out by Ritchard the Lionheart in the name of Christianity.
On the career of Quirinius, I refer to probably the the greatest source of Roman history (because he was known to write from official Roman documents) from that era, Tacitus.
Infact, Tacitus is the reason that I actualy believe that Jesus was a real person, because even though Tacitus only mentions him very briefly while explaining who the Christians were and that the originator was killed by the Romans, (and actualy calls him 'Christus' rather than Jesus) it is very highly likely that he got this information from an official Roman report of the crucifixion, probably from Pilate.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 8:55am : Slacker has said some things that resonate with contemporary scholarship, no doubt, and I more than admit this. Moreover, there exist scholars who are in agreement with him on many major points. But that is different from a consensus. As I mentioned, Robert Price still thinks Christianity plagiarized the mystery religions, but he's a fringe scholar and not a representative of a consensus. On the other hand, there is a consensus that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles.
There is actualy very little real concensus among scholars, they each have slightly differing views and slightly different ways of interpreting things. For instance, if you were to class the Gospel writers as the original Christian scholars, even they disagree to a cirtain degree.
For every scholarly point made by anyone, there will inevitably be a consensus that agrees and a different concensus that disagrees.
So how are we to find truth in amongst all that scholarly in-fighting? By trying to find corroboration with as many historical sources as we can find plus archeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, ect, ect.
As I said earlier, we have no way of knowing if that actualy gives us the 'real' truth or not, short of constructing a time machine, but the logic behind the technique is sound. It's basicaly done in the same way that detectives solve crimes, look at ALL the evidence available, see which parts corroborate, and it's quite likely that your resulting data is something close to the real events.
Take the flood myth for example. You can read the account in Genesis and completely believe that it's completely true, or you can read the earlier Babylonian version found in the Epic of Gilgamesh or even earlier Sumerian version, compare them, find corroborations like; "I opened the window" Gilgamesh XI,135 "Noah opened the window of the ark" Genesis 8:6
"The dove went out and returned" Gilgamesh XI,147 "sent forth the dove and the dove came back to him" Genesis 8:10b-11
"I sent forth a raven" Gilgamesh XI,152 "Noah... sent forth a raven" Genesis 8:7
"The gods smelled the sweet savor" Gilgamesh XI,160 "And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." Genesis 8:21
"On Mount Nisir the boat grounded" Gilgamesh XI,140 "the ark came to rest upon the mountains" Genesis 8:4
"The cattle of the field, the beast of the plain" Gilgamesh XI,85 "clean animals and of animals that are not clean" Genesis 7:8
"into the ship all my family and relatives" Gilgamesh XI,84 "Go into the ark, you and all your household" Genesis 7:1
From the above and the fact that the oldest known versions of the flood myth are the Babylonian and Sumarian, then we can surmise that that the Genesis version was actualy just a rehash of an earlier version.
That opinion may of course change if an even older copy of the Genesis version is ever found, but until that actualy happens, then we must assume that the story of Noah is simply a myth based on an earlier myth that involves a pantheon of gods and one particular water god called Enki who warns the flood hero and advises him to build a boat.
From the above and the fact that the oldest known versions of the flood myth are the Babylonian and Sumarian, then we can surmise that that the Genesis version was actualy just a rehash of an earlier version.
That opinion may of course change if an even older copy of the Genesis version is ever found, but until that actualy happens, then we must assume that the story of Noah is simply a myth based on an earlier myth that involves a pantheon of gods and one particular water god called Enki who warns the flood hero and advises him to build a boat.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 9:39am : Everything in this quote implies that you're engaging in personal scholarship, not drawing from a scholarly consensus, and therefore we're talking more about your hypotheses than "the historic truth as we know it," because there is no "we." I'm not saying you can't discuss your personal hypotheses, of course. I'm just saying that personal hypotheses -- whether your or mine or whatever -- can never be "the historic truth as we know it."
We all engage in personal scholarship, we choose which consensus to follow and go with it then base our findings, or our personal 'hypothesis', on our own interpretations of what the particular concensus we happen to follow says.
You're own personal hypothesis based on the scholarly concensus you follow just happens to be different from my own.
Does this have to be a problem though? After all, Christianity is full of different schisms because of different people all claiming that their own personal hypothesis based on different scholarly concensus is the most accurate version. And taht's just Christianity. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, they are all based on different scholarly concensus, (and all have their own schisms) they all disagree, but does that make any scholarly concensus worth less than any other?
I see no problem with using the phrase "the historic truth as we know it" I cirtainly wouldn't call something "the historic truth" without the prefix "as we know it" because what we 'think' we know about history can change with a new find, so all history should basicaly have the prefix "as we know it''.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 9:39am : Everything in this quote implies that you're engaging in personal scholarship, not drawing from a scholarly consensus, and therefore we're talking more about your hypotheses than "the historic truth as we know it," because there is no "we." I'm not saying you can't discuss your personal hypotheses, of course. I'm just saying that personal hypotheses -- whether your or mine or whatever -- can never be "the historic truth as we know it."
We all engage in personal scholarship, we choose which consensus to follow and go with it then base our findings, or our personal 'hypothesis', on our own interpretations of what the particular concensus we happen to follow says.
You're own personal hypothesis based on the scholarly concensus you follow just happens to be different from my own.
Does this have to be a problem though? After all, Christianity is full of different schisms because of different people all claiming that their own personal hypothesis based on different scholarly concensus is the most accurate version. And taht's just Christianity. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, they are all based on different scholarly concensus, (and all have their own schisms) they all disagree, but does that make any scholarly concensus worth less than any other?
I see no problem with using the phrase "the historic truth as we know it" I cirtainly wouldn't call something "the historic truth" without the prefix "as we know it" because what we 'think' we know about history can change with a new find, so all history should basicaly have the prefix "as we know it''.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 10:25am : Ahh, unintentional then. Personaly I prefer, whenever possible to go to the nearest to 'first hand' sources as I can get, for instance on the Crusades, I like to refer to Bahā' ad-Dīn ibn Shaddād who witnessed the truly awful 'Acre massacre' carried out by Ritchard the Lionheart in the name of Christianity.
On the career of Quirinius, I refer to probably the the greatest source of Roman history (because he was known to write from official Roman documents) from that era, Tacitus.
Infact, Tacitus is the reason that I actualy believe that Jesus was a real person, because even though Tacitus only mentions him very briefly while explaining who the Christians were and that the originator was killed by the Romans, (and actualy calls him 'Christus' rather than Jesus) it is very highly likely that he got this information from an official Roman report of the crucifixion, probably from Pilate.
I'm not opposed to reading eye-witness and primary sources, of course, but to rely exclusively on them is to say that you are the best interpreter of everything. But if you look over the history of the interpretation of ANY text -- any event, any manuscript, any person's life -- the first thing you'll notice is that some very, very smart people have made some very, very wrong interpretations. And in many cases, if they had read the later arguments against their interpretations they would have realized that they were wrong and admitted that they interpreted things wrongly in the first place. Newton and Einstein would be a great example here. So it's incredibly misled to rely simply on yourself as your own authority, because you are very likely to overlook something that others, and especially those with intense training who have devoted their lives to studying one particular topic, might catch.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 10:25am : There is actualy very little real concensus among scholars, they each have slightly differing views and slightly different ways of interpreting things. For instance, if you were to class the Gospel writers as the original Christian scholars, even they disagree to a cirtain degree.
For every scholarly point made by anyone, there will inevitably be a consensus that agrees and a different concensus that disagrees.
So how are we to find truth in amongst all that scholarly in-fighting? By trying to find corroboration with as many historical sources as we can find plus archeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, ect, ect.
But "archaeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, etc." are what these scholars who disagree are using, so you're just putting your hat in the ring as another scholar. Rather than offering an alternative to reading scholars, you are saying that you are the scholar whom you will trust. A better way, it seems to me, is to be judicious with when we think we can make sound judgments, and when we cannot, we continue to learn but we do not step beyond those good judgments.
(I do realize, of course, that disagreements exist even among very similar scholars. For instance, the heated debates over natural theology between Brunner and Barth seemed odd to Americans, who viewed the two as having identical theologies. But consonance and consensus has a tendency to emerge. For instance, there is a scientific consensus that "evolution" is how we arrived at the biodiversity of today, even though there are a thousand disagreements on finer points. Similarly, there is a consensus that the world is getting hotter, even if there is not one comprehensive climate model on which every scientist agrees.)
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 10:25am : Take the flood myth
for example. You can read the account in Genesis and completely believe
that it's completely true, or you can read the earlier Babylonian
version found in the Epic of Gilgamesh or even earlier Sumerian
version, compare them, find corroborations like;
All these correlations that you quote imply that there is a
relationship, obviously. But the deeper question is, what is that
relationship? Was Genesis, as you say, just a "rehash" of Enuma
Elish? Are both genetic descendants of some earlier flood story? And
what of the differences between the two; does Genesis alter Enuma Elish
in such radical and fundamental ways that while it draws from this
other story it is in every way its own story, rather than a "rehash"?
The evidence is not pre-interpreted; someone must interpret it. And so
we can't simply lay down "data" on the table and assume that it can
speak for itse
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-23 10:25:26']Ahh, unintentional then. Personaly I prefer, whenever possible to go to the nearest to 'first hand' sources as I can get, for instance on the Crusades, I like to refer to Bahā' ad-Dīn ibn Shaddād who witnessed the truly awful 'Acre massacre' carried out by Ritchard the Lionheart in the name of Christianity.
On the career of Quirinius, I refer to probably the the greatest source of Roman history (because he was known to write from official Roman documents) from that era, Tacitus.
Infact, Tacitus is the reason that I actualy believe that Jesus was a real person, because even though Tacitus only mentions him very briefly while explaining who the Christians were and that the originator was killed by the Romans, (and actualy calls him 'Christus' rather than Jesus) it is very highly likely that he got this information from an official Roman report of the crucifixion, probably from Pilate.[/quote] I'm not opposed to reading eye-witness and primary sources, of course, but to rely exclusively on them is to say that you are the best interpreter of everything. But if you look over the history of the interpretation of ANY text -- any event, any manuscript, any person's life -- the first thing you'll notice is that some very, very smart people have made some very, very wrong interpretations. And in many cases, if they had read the later arguments against their interpretations they would have realized that they were wrong and admitted that they interpreted things wrongly in the first place. Newton and Einstein would be a great example here. So it's incredibly misled to rely simply on yourself as your own authority, because you are very likely to overlook something that others, and especially those with intense training who have devoted their lives to studying one particular topic, might catch.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-23 10:25:26']There is actualy very little real concensus among scholars, they each have slightly differing views and slightly different ways of interpreting things. For instance, if you were to class the Gospel writers as the original Christian scholars, even they disagree to a cirtain degree.
For every scholarly point made by anyone, there will inevitably be a consensus that agrees and a different concensus that disagrees.
So how are we to find truth in amongst all that scholarly in-fighting? By trying to find corroboration with as many historical sources as we can find plus archeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, ect, ect.[/quote] But "archaeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, etc." are what these scholars who disagree are using, so you're just putting your hat in the ring as another scholar. Rather than offering an alternative to reading scholars, you are saying that you are the scholar whom you will trust. A better way, it seems to me, is to be judicious with when we think we can make sound judgments, and when we cannot, we continue to learn but we do not step beyond those good judgments.
(I do realize, of course, that disagreements exist even among very similar scholars. For instance, the heated debates over natural theology between Brunner and Barth seemed odd to Americans, who viewed the two as having identical theologies. But consonance and consensus has a tendency to emerge. For instance, there is a scientific consensus that "evolution" is how we arrived at the biodiversity of today, even though there are a thousand disagreements on finer points. Similarly, there is a consensus that the world is getting hotter, even if there is not one comprehensive climate model on which every scientist agrees.)
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-23 10:25:26']Take the flood myth
for example. You can read the account in Genesis and completely believe
that it's completely true, or you can read the earlier Babylonian
version found in the Epic of Gilgamesh or even earlier Sumerian
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 10:40am : We all engage in personal scholarship, we choose which consensus to follow and go with it then base our findings, or our personal 'hypothesis', on our own interpretations of what the particular concensus we happen to follow says...
I see no problem with using the phrase "the historic truth as we know it" I cirtainly wouldn't call something "the historic truth" without the prefix "as we know it" because what we 'think' we know about history can change with a new find, so all history should basicaly have the prefix "as we know it''.
When you write it out, what you're really saying is "This is what I think happened." But that is very different from "This is the historic truth as we know it." "The" implies finality, "know" something stronger than speculation, and "we" a public consensus.
At root, what I'm saying is that you're fundamentally acting alone. You don't seem to disagree, as elsewhere you have written that fundamentally you are examining primary sources and coming up with your own interpretations. But if this is the case then you lose "the" and the "we." There is no "the," because there are as many different options as there are people. There is no "we," because it's just you. And so what I'm saying is that it is not an issue "of what the particular consensus we happen to follow says," because you're not following a consensus. You're acting alone.
I'm not saying it's necessarily bad to act alone. In fact I'm quite glad that certain people throughout history have been willing to act alone. I'm just saying that we can't mix that up with settled, public consensus. If you believe that there is no settled, public consensus, then that is fine: But presumably that drastically limits the number and scope of judgments that you would expect us to find compelling.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-23 10:40:40']We all engage in personal scholarship, we choose which consensus to follow and go with it then base our findings, or our personal 'hypothesis', on our own interpretations of what the particular concensus we happen to follow says...
I see no problem with using the phrase "the historic truth as we know it" I cirtainly wouldn't call something "the historic truth" without the prefix "as we know it" because what we 'think' we know about history can change with a new find, so all history should basicaly have the prefix "as we know it''.[/QUOTE] When you write it out, what you're really saying is "This is what I think happened." But that is very different from "This is the historic truth as we know it." "The" implies finality, "know" something stronger than speculation, and "we" a public consensus.
At root, what I'm saying is that you're fundamentally acting alone. You don't seem to disagree, as elsewhere you have written that fundamentally you are examining primary sources and coming up with your own interpretations. But if this is the case then you lose "the" and the "we." There is no "the," because there are as many different options as there are people. There is no "we," because it's just you. And so what I'm saying is that it is not an issue "of what the particular consensus we happen to follow says," because you're not following a consensus. You're acting alone.
I'm not saying it's necessarily bad to act alone. In fact I'm quite glad that certain people throughout history have been willing to act alone. I'm just saying that we can't mix that up with settled, public consensus. If you believe that there is no settled, public consensus, then that is fine: But presumably that drastically limits the number and scope of judgments that you would expect us to find compelling.
Stanley151, you are acting just as alone as Slacker, you do realize this right? by selecting which group consensus that you believe to be right, you are making your own personal judgement. personal judgment can not be removed from any circumstance, so to criticize someone for stating something as "historical truth" and then come along state your own understanding of "historical truth" is a bit silly.
as for Furman, i see your point sorta. our professors did have to be a bit extreme sometimes in order to get us talking. however, that was only in the intro classes, my upper level classes have not done so, and what i've been learning still rings true with what Slacker is saying, and from what I've read from sources on my own, as in not recomended by my professors, I've found that most of these scholars would probably have a very different idea of what the scholarly consensus is.
anyway, i think what we're arguing about here is a bit pointless. why don't we just start a new topic, and beat each other to death with arguments? i like that better lol.
also, if we (we as in Stanley and Slacker lol) can calm down with the walls of text, it would be great. if not, at least my skim reading will get much better before class starts.
Stanley151, you are acting just as alone as Slacker, you do realize this right? by selecting which group consensus that you believe to be right, you are making your own personal judgement. personal judgment can not be removed from any circumstance, so to criticize someone for stating something as "historical truth" and then come along state your own understanding of "historical truth" is a bit silly.
as for Furman, i see your point sorta. our professors did have to be a bit extreme sometimes in order to get us talking. however, that was only in the intro classes, my upper level classes have not done so, and what i've been learning still rings true with what Slacker is saying, and from what I've read from sources on my own, as in not recomended by my professors, I've found that most of these scholars would probably have a very different idea of what the scholarly consensus is.
anyway, i think what we're arguing about here is a bit pointless. why don't we just start a new topic, and beat each other to death with arguments? i like that better lol.
also, if we (we as in Stanley and Slacker lol) can calm down with the walls of text, it would be great. if not, at least my skim reading will get much better before class starts.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:35pm : I'm not opposed to reading eye-witness and primary sources, of course, but to rely exclusively on them is to say that you are the best interpreter of everything. But if you look over the history of the interpretation of ANY text -- any event, any manuscript, any person's life -- the first thing you'll notice is that some very, very smart people have made some very, very wrong interpretations. And in many cases, if they had read the later arguments against their interpretations they would have realized that they were wrong and admitted that they interpreted things wrongly in the first place. Newton and Einstein would be a great example here. So it's incredibly misled to rely simply on yourself as your own authority, because you are very likely to overlook something that others, and especially those with intense training who have devoted their lives to studying one particular topic, might catch.
I don't rely exclusively on eye-witness and primary sources, I read what others have said on the subject, both from an agnostic/atheistic and theistic point of view, I look at historical and archeological data when it's available, I look into the scientific feasability of cirtain religious claims, I actualy probably gather evidence from a wider base of information than you do, who, I hope you don't mind me saying, sound like you only take into account the point of view of Christian scholars. While that is indeed learning from a great source of knowledge, can it really be enough?
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:35pm :
But "archaeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, etc." are what these scholars who disagree are using, so you're just putting your hat in the ring as another scholar. Rather than offering an alternative to reading scholars, you are saying that you are the scholar whom you will trust. A better way, it seems to me, is to be judicious with when we think we can make sound judgments, and when we cannot, we continue to learn but we do not step beyond those good judgments.
But isn't that effectively placing limits on our search for knowledge?
I look at differing scholarly information and try to find corroboration. I can see your point about me putting my own hat in the ring, but I have been studying this stuff a looong time, (maybe not a lifetime yet but then, not all scholars are very old men) and not just in an amateur way as I suspect you're pointing to. I spend the majority of every day plouging through information, checking sources, making sure they are from sound backgrounds and I 'carefully' come to conclusions, like any scholar would. I use scholarly methods, historical, empirical and scientific. Personaly, I think that makes me qualified enough to at least make my own mind up and form an opinion, as you yourself have obviously done, but I'm always open to discussion, and have indeed had my mind changed on numerous occasions by experts in their respective fields. That's why I enjoy debating this sort of stuff so much, because it opens me up to the knowledge and scrutiny of others. That is, after all, the scientific method in a nutshell, acquiring new knowledge and correcting and integrating previous knowledge. I attend seminars, work under experts in the field of archeology on digs whenever I can and I 'learn' from the experts, but even they are willing to be corrected when new information comes to light. Fair enough, I don't have any letters after my name, but only because raising a family, epilepsy and a slight problem with dyslexia got in the way of a fully academic lifestyle. (the use of computers and word processors with spell checkers wasn't very widespread back in my earlier days)
I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to actualy call myself a 'scholar' because I've never been awarded a scholarship, (and never sought one) and I feel uncomfortable saying this because it sounds like I'm blowing my own trumpet, but I am cirtainly no average amateur.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:35pm : I'm not opposed to reading eye-witness and primary sources, of course, but to rely exclusively on them is to say that you are the best interpreter of everything. But if you look over the history of the interpretation of ANY text -- any event, any manuscript, any person's life -- the first thing you'll notice is that some very, very smart people have made some very, very wrong interpretations. And in many cases, if they had read the later arguments against their interpretations they would have realized that they were wrong and admitted that they interpreted things wrongly in the first place. Newton and Einstein would be a great example here. So it's incredibly misled to rely simply on yourself as your own authority, because you are very likely to overlook something that others, and especially those with intense training who have devoted their lives to studying one particular topic, might catch.
I don't rely exclusively on eye-witness and primary sources, I read what others have said on the subject, both from an agnostic/atheistic and theistic point of view, I look at historical and archeological data when it's available, I look into the scientific feasability of cirtain religious claims, I actualy probably gather evidence from a wider base of information than you do, who, I hope you don't mind me saying, sound like you only take into account the point of view of Christian scholars. While that is indeed learning from a great source of knowledge, can it really be enough?
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:35pm :
But "archaeology, accepted dating techniques, geology, etc." are what these scholars who disagree are using, so you're just putting your hat in the ring as another scholar. Rather than offering an alternative to reading scholars, you are saying that you are the scholar whom you will trust. A better way, it seems to me, is to be judicious with when we think we can make sound judgments, and when we cannot, we continue to learn but we do not step beyond those good judgments.
But isn't that effectively placing limits on our search for knowledge?
I look at differing scholarly information and try to find corroboration. I can see your point about me putting my own hat in the ring, but I have been studying this stuff a looong time, (maybe not a lifetime yet but then, not all scholars are very old men) and not just in an amateur way as I suspect you're pointing to. I spend the majority of every day plouging through information, checking sources, making sure they are from sound backgrounds and I 'carefully' come to conclusions, like any scholar would. I use scholarly methods, historical, empirical and scientific. Personaly, I think that makes me qualified enough to at least make my own mind up and form an opinion, as you yourself have obviously done, but I'm always open to discussion, and have indeed had my mind changed on numerous occasions by experts in their respective fields. That's why I enjoy debating this sort of stuff so much, because it opens me up to the knowledge and scrutiny of others. That is, after all, the scientific method in a nutshell, acquiring new knowledge and correcting and integrating previous knowledge. I attend seminars, work under experts in the field of archeology on digs whenever I can and I 'learn' from the experts, but even they are willing to be corrected when new information comes to light. Fair enough, I don't have any letters after my name, but only because raising a family, epilepsy and a slight problem with dyslexia got in the way of a fully academic lifestyle. (the use of computers and word processors with spell checkers wasn't very widespread back in my earlier days)
I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to actualy call myself a 'scholar' because I've never been awarded a scholarship, (and never sought one) and I feel uncomfortable saying this because it sounds like I'm blowing my own trumpet, but I am cirtainly no average amateur.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:35pm : All these correlations that you quote imply that there is a relationship, obviously. But the deeper question is, what is that relationship? Was Genesis, as you say, just a "rehash" of Enuma Elish? Are both genetic descendants of some earlier flood story? And what of the differences between the two; does Genesis alter Enuma Elish in such radical and fundamental ways that while it draws from this other story it is in every way its own story, rather than a "rehash"?
The evidence is not pre-interpreted; someone must interpret it. And so we can't simply lay down "data" on the table and assume that it can speak for itse
Well first off, they are two quite different things. I was referring purely to Babylonian 'flood' myths, but the Enuma Elish is a Babylonian 'creation' myth. It has a similarity to the Genesis creation myth in that they both point to creation as an act of divine speech and both have a similar sequence, (although different methods of creation) the main difference being that in Enuma Elish, the gods first consult with Enki before creating man from clay and the blood of a defeated god 'Kingu', and the purpose of creating man in that version was to replace the lesser gods called the 'Igigi' whose job it was to tend to 'creation', (which, in this context, means the earth or possibly 'the garden') but had, apparently, effectively gone on strike, while the Genesis version simply has a monotheistic God wishing to make man in his own image, but both follow creation with a period of rest.
In answer to your question, 'Is Genesis a re-hash of Enuma Elish?' well the general concensus based on the available information is that Enuma Elish pre-dates Genesis, and the incredible similarities between the two would suggest that yes, Genesis is based upon Enuma Elish to a cirtain extent. Yes, they also have differences, but that can be attributed to the original Hebrews being a mixture of people from different cultures throughout the Fertile Cresent and all bringing their own influences to Genesis.
In answer to your question, 'Are both genetic descendants of some earlier flood story?' No, as I've just explained to you, the Enuma Elish, is not a flood story, nor is it biological and contains genes as something that was 'genetic' would, but the Enuma Elish would appear to be a 'generic' decendant of the Sumarian creation myth, found on an ancient clay tablet known as the 'Eridu Genesis' which although it is fragmentory, contains enough to show it is at least related to the Enuma Elish, (which makes sense because 'Sumarian' is after all simply the earlier culture to 'Babylonian' in the area of Mesopotamia, effectively, the Sumarians became the Babylonians) and because general concensus says that Eridu Genesis pre-dates both Enuma Elish and Genesis, then yes, it is likely that they are both decendants of 'Eridu Genesis'. Infact, the general concensus in the field of history is that 'Eridu Genesis' is the 'oldest known' creation myth.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 6:35pm : All these correlations that you quote imply that there is a relationship, obviously. But the deeper question is, what is that relationship? Was Genesis, as you say, just a "rehash" of Enuma Elish? Are both genetic descendants of some earlier flood story? And what of the differences between the two; does Genesis alter Enuma Elish in such radical and fundamental ways that while it draws from this other story it is in every way its own story, rather than a "rehash"?
The evidence is not pre-interpreted; someone must interpret it. And so we can't simply lay down "data" on the table and assume that it can speak for itse
Well first off, they are two quite different things. I was referring purely to Babylonian 'flood' myths, but the Enuma Elish is a Babylonian 'creation' myth. It has a similarity to the Genesis creation myth in that they both point to creation as an act of divine speech and both have a similar sequence, (although different methods of creation) the main difference being that in Enuma Elish, the gods first consult with Enki before creating man from clay and the blood of a defeated god 'Kingu', and the purpose of creating man in that version was to replace the lesser gods called the 'Igigi' whose job it was to tend to 'creation', (which, in this context, means the earth or possibly 'the garden') but had, apparently, effectively gone on strike, while the Genesis version simply has a monotheistic God wishing to make man in his own image, but both follow creation with a period of rest.
In answer to your question, 'Is Genesis a re-hash of Enuma Elish?' well the general concensus based on the available information is that Enuma Elish pre-dates Genesis, and the incredible similarities between the two would suggest that yes, Genesis is based upon Enuma Elish to a cirtain extent. Yes, they also have differences, but that can be attributed to the original Hebrews being a mixture of people from different cultures throughout the Fertile Cresent and all bringing their own influences to Genesis.
In answer to your question, 'Are both genetic descendants of some earlier flood story?' No, as I've just explained to you, the Enuma Elish, is not a flood story, nor is it biological and contains genes as something that was 'genetic' would, but the Enuma Elish would appear to be a 'generic' decendant of the Sumarian creation myth, found on an ancient clay tablet known as the 'Eridu Genesis' which although it is fragmentory, contains enough to show it is at least related to the Enuma Elish, (which makes sense because 'Sumarian' is after all simply the earlier culture to 'Babylonian' in the area of Mesopotamia, effectively, the Sumarians became the Babylonians) and because general concensus says that Eridu Genesis pre-dates both Enuma Elish and Genesis, then yes, it is likely that they are both decendants of 'Eridu Genesis'. Infact, the general concensus in the field of history is that 'Eridu Genesis' is the 'oldest known' creation myth.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm : Stanley151, you are acting just as alone as Slacker, you do realize this right? by selecting which group consensus that you believe to be right, you are making your own personal judgement. personal judgment can not be removed from any circumstance, so to criticize someone for stating something as "historical truth" and then come along state your own understanding of "historical truth" is a bit silly.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm :
also, if we (we as in Stanley and Slacker lol) can calm down with the walls of text, it would be great. if not, at least my skim reading will get much better before class starts.
I'm sorry bud, but if I'm questioned, I have to respond and most of this stuff cannot be said in just a couple of lines.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm : Stanley151, you are acting just as alone as Slacker, you do realize this right? by selecting which group consensus that you believe to be right, you are making your own personal judgement. personal judgment can not be removed from any circumstance, so to criticize someone for stating something as "historical truth" and then come along state your own understanding of "historical truth" is a bit silly.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm :
also, if we (we as in Stanley and Slacker lol) can calm down with the walls of text, it would be great. if not, at least my skim reading will get much better before class starts.
I'm sorry bud, but if I'm questioned, I have to respond and most of this stuff cannot be said in just a couple of lines.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm : Stanley151, you are acting just as alone as Slacker, you do realize this right? by selecting which group consensus that you believe to be right, you are making your own personal judgement. personal judgment can not be removed from any circumstance, so to criticize someone for stating something as "historical truth" and then come along state your own understanding of "historical truth" is a bit silly.
I've made an exclusively negative claim, i.e. that Slacker is wrong to say that he has presented "the historic truth as we know it." I'm not saying that I, alternatively, am presenting "the historic truth as we know it." I'm just saying that he's not. I can't be said to be "acting alone" in the relevant sense, then, because I don't claim to have a public consensus behind me.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm : as for Furman, i see your point sorta. our professors did have to be a bit extreme sometimes in order to get us talking. however, that was only in the intro classes, my upper level classes have not done so, and what i've been learning still rings true with what Slacker is saying, and from what I've read from sources on my own, as in not recomended by my professors, I've found that most of these scholars would probably have a very different idea of what the scholarly consensus is.
Perhaps we should go about it this way: Which specific things that Slacker has said "ring true"? That the Gospel of Luke had more than one author? That the Crusades were fundamentally superstitious Christian aggression against peaceful, unsuspecting Muslims? That Christianity is fundamentally plagiarism of the mystery religions? Surely you recognize the list of authors I mentioned earlier, and surely you recognize that these beliefs do not reflect such a scholarly consensus.
Now, there are of course various resonances with the scholarship. Scholars say somewhat similar things about Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14, the connections between other ANE literature and Genesis, and so on. And there is some resonance in perspective there. Further, most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity, just as Slacker does. I admitted this from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the broader, programmatic statements that I mentioned earlier become "the historic truth as we know it."
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm : anyway, i think what we're arguing about here is a bit pointless. why don't we just start a new topic, and beat each other to death with arguments? i like that better lol.
That's fine. Generally I accompanied what I said with explanations of either why scholars have moved away from the older views or why the scholarly consensus doesn't get Slacker anywhere particularly damning.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-23 19:34:12']Stanley151, you are acting just as alone as Slacker, you do realize this right? by selecting which group consensus that you believe to be right, you are making your own personal judgement. personal judgment can not be removed from any circumstance, so to criticize someone for stating something as "historical truth" and then come along state your own understanding of "historical truth" is a bit silly.[/quote] I've made an exclusively negative claim, i.e. that Slacker is wrong to say that he has presented "the historic truth as we know it." I'm not saying that I, alternatively, am presenting "the historic truth as we know it." I'm just saying that he's not. I can't be said to be "acting alone" in the relevant sense, then, because I don't claim to have a public consensus behind me.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-23 19:34:12']as for Furman, i see your point sorta. our professors did have to be a bit extreme sometimes in order to get us talking. however, that was only in the intro classes, my upper level classes have not done so, and what i've been learning still rings true with what Slacker is saying, and from what I've read from sources on my own, as in not recomended by my professors, I've found that most of these scholars would probably have a very different idea of what the scholarly consensus is.[/quote] Perhaps we should go about it this way: Which specific things that Slacker has said "ring true"? That the Gospel of Luke had more than one author? That the Crusades were fundamentally superstitious Christian aggression against peaceful, unsuspecting Muslims? That Christianity is fundamentally plagiarism of the mystery religions? Surely you recognize the list of authors I mentioned earlier, and surely you recognize that these beliefs do not reflect such a scholarly consensus.
Now, there are of course various resonances with the scholarship. Scholars say somewhat similar things about Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14, the connections between other ANE literature and Genesis, and so on. And there is some resonance in perspective there. Further, most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity, just as Slacker does. I admitted this from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the broader, programmatic statements that I mentioned earlier become "the historic truth as we know it."
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-23 19:34:12']anyway, i think what we're arguing about here is a bit pointless. why don't we just start a new topic, and beat each other to death with arguments? i like that better lol.[/quote] That's fine. Generally I accompanied what I said with explanations of either why scholars have moved away from the older views or why the scholarly consensus doesn't get Slacker anywhere particularly damning.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:36am : I don't rely exclusively on eye-witness and primary sources, I read what others have said on the subject, both from an agnostic/atheistic and theistic point of view, I look at historical and archeological data when it's available, I look into the scientific feasability of cirtain religious claims, I actualy probably gather evidence from a wider base of information than you do, who, I hope you don't mind me saying, sound like you only take into account the point of view of Christian scholars. While that is indeed learning from a great source of knowledge, can it really be enough?
I listed a few dozen sources, and if you check it you won't find them particularly Christian. Only a couple of those I mentioned could subscribe to the Creed straightforwardly.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:36am : But isn't that effectively placing limits on our search for knowledge?
Well, sort of. Fundamentally it is to admit the incompleteness of our search for knowledge. Those things which are already clear, we admit as such. Those things which are still under consideration, we admit as such. Those things which are still dark and confusion, we admit as such.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:36am : I look at differing scholarly information and try to find corroboration. I can see your point about me putting my own hat in the ring, but I have been studying this stuff a looong time, (maybe not a lifetime yet but then, not all scholars are very old men) and not just in an amateur way as I suspect you're pointing to. I spend the majority of every day plouging through information, checking sources, making sure they are from sound backgrounds and I 'carefully' come to conclusions, like any scholar would. I use scholarly methods, historical, empirical and scientific. Personaly, I think that makes me qualified enough to at least make my own mind up and form an opinion, as you yourself have obviously done, but I'm always open to discussion, and have indeed had my mind changed on numerous occasions by experts in their respective fields. That's why I enjoy debating this sort of stuff so much, because it opens me up to the knowledge and scrutiny of others. That is, after all, the scientific method in a nutshell, acquiring new knowledge and correcting and integrating previous knowledge. I attend seminars, work under experts in the field of archeology on digs whenever I can and I 'learn' from the experts, but even they are willing to be corrected when new information comes to light. Fair enough, I don't have any letters after my name, but only because raising a family, epilepsy and a slight problem with dyslexia got in the way of a fully academic lifestyle. (the use of computers and word processors with spell checkers wasn't very widespread back in my earlier days)
I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to actualy call myself a 'scholar' because I've never been awarded a scholarship, (and never sought one) and I feel uncomfortable saying this because it sounds like I'm blowing my own trumpet, but I am cirtainly no average amateur.
What I said wouldn't change if you were a professional scholar at the top of the field. If any scholar does scholarship and presents it, of course he thinks that it is true. But he can't take the step from saying that it is true to saying that it is agreed-upon as a settled question. Again, as far as what I'm arguing is concerned, you are certainly free to postulate and argue and declare and so forth. You just don't take that additional step and say that everybody knows it's true, and you're wanting to let Christians in on it.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 04:36:24']I don't rely exclusively on eye-witness and primary sources, I read what others have said on the subject, both from an agnostic/atheistic and theistic point of view, I look at historical and archeological data when it's available, I look into the scientific feasability of cirtain religious claims, I actualy probably gather evidence from a wider base of information than you do, who, I hope you don't mind me saying, sound like you only take into account the point of view of Christian scholars. While that is indeed learning from a great source of knowledge, can it really be enough?[/quote] I listed a few dozen sources, and if you check it you won't find them particularly Christian. Only a couple of those I mentioned could subscribe to the Creed straightforwardly.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 04:36:24']But isn't that effectively placing limits on our search for knowledge?[/quote] Well, sort of. Fundamentally it is to admit the incompleteness of our search for knowledge. Those things which are already clear, we admit as such. Those things which are still under consideration, we admit as such. Those things which are still dark and confusion, we admit as such.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 04:36:24']I look at differing scholarly information and try to find corroboration. I can see your point about me putting my own hat in the ring, but I have been studying this stuff a looong time, (maybe not a lifetime yet but then, not all scholars are very old men) and not just in an amateur way as I suspect you're pointing to. I spend the majority of every day plouging through information, checking sources, making sure they are from sound backgrounds and I 'carefully' come to conclusions, like any scholar would. I use scholarly methods, historical, empirical and scientific. Personaly, I think that makes me qualified enough to at least make my own mind up and form an opinion, as you yourself have obviously done, but I'm always open to discussion, and have indeed had my mind changed on numerous occasions by experts in their respective fields. That's why I enjoy debating this sort of stuff so much, because it opens me up to the knowledge and scrutiny of others. That is, after all, the scientific method in a nutshell, acquiring new knowledge and correcting and integrating previous knowledge. I attend seminars, work under experts in the field of archeology on digs whenever I can and I 'learn' from the experts, but even they are willing to be corrected when new information comes to light. Fair enough, I don't have any letters after my name, but only because raising a family, epilepsy and a slight problem with dyslexia got in the way of a fully academic lifestyle. (the use of computers and word processors with spell checkers wasn't very widespread back in my earlier days)
I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to actualy call myself a 'scholar' because I've never been awarded a scholarship, (and never sought one) and I feel uncomfortable saying this because it sounds like I'm blowing my own trumpet, but I am cirtainly no average amateur.[/QUOTE] What I said wouldn't change if you were a professional scholar at the top of the field. If any scholar does scholarship and presents it, of course he thinks that it is true. But he can't take the step from saying that it is true to saying that it is agreed-upon as a settled question. Again, as far as what I'm arguing is concerned, you are certainly free to postulate and argue and declare and so forth. You just don't take that additional step and say that everybody knows it's true, and you're wanting to let Christians in on it.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:37am : Well first off, they are two quite different things. I was referring purely to Babylonian 'flood' myths, but the Enuma Elish is a Babylonian 'creation' myth.
It was a typo, sorry. I know the difference between Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, etc.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:37am : In answer to your question, 'Is Genesis a re-hash of Enuma Elish?' well the general concensus based on the available information is that Enuma Elish pre-dates Genesis, and the incredible similarities between the two would suggest that yes, Genesis is based upon Enuma Elish to a cirtain extent. Yes, they also have differences, but that can be attributed to the original Hebrews being a mixture of people from different cultures throughout the Fertile Cresent and all bringing their own influences to Genesis.
"To a certain extent" is entirely the point. The ways in which they are different are quite remarkable, and we don't have any surrounding texts from which to account for the differences simplistically. So we have no evidence of simple plagiarism. You say that the "differences... can be attributed to the original Hebrews being a mixture of people," but that's just speculation; there is no hard evidence. The hard evidence is that there is a relationship between Genesis and surrounding stories. But there is nothing further to say that Genesis is plagiarism, because it is so fundamentally different from those surrounding stories that we're looking at a new work.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:37am : In answer to your question, 'Are both genetic descendants of some earlier flood story?' No, as I've just explained to you, the Enuma Elish, is not a flood story, nor is it biological and contains genes as something that was 'genetic' would, but the Enuma Elish would appear to be a 'generic' decendant of the Sumarian creation myth, found on an ancient clay tablet known as the 'Eridu Genesis' which although it is fragmentory, contains enough to show it is at least related to the Enuma Elish, (which makes sense because 'Sumarian' is after all simply the earlier culture to 'Babylonian' in the area of Mesopotamia, effectively, the Sumarians became the Babylonians) and because general concensus says that Eridu Genesis pre-dates both Enuma Elish and Genesis, then yes, it is likely that they are both decendants of 'Eridu Genesis'. Infact, the general concensus in the field of history is that 'Eridu Genesis' is the 'oldest known' creation myth.
"Descendants" is fine, and to my mind is clearly established. "Plagiarism" is the only thing I'm contesting.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 04:37:05']Well first off, they are two quite different things. I was referring purely to Babylonian 'flood' myths, but the Enuma Elish is a Babylonian 'creation' myth.[/quote] It was a typo, sorry. I know the difference between Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, etc.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 04:37:05']In answer to your question, 'Is Genesis a re-hash of Enuma Elish?' well the general concensus based on the available information is that Enuma Elish pre-dates Genesis, and the incredible similarities between the two would suggest that yes, Genesis is based upon Enuma Elish to a cirtain extent. Yes, they also have differences, but that can be attributed to the original Hebrews being a mixture of people from different cultures throughout the Fertile Cresent and all bringing their own influences to Genesis.[/quote] "To a certain extent" is entirely the point. The ways in which they are different are quite remarkable, and we don't have any surrounding texts from which to account for the differences simplistically. So we have no evidence of simple plagiarism. You say that the "differences... can be attributed to the original Hebrews being a mixture of people," but that's just speculation; there is no hard evidence. The hard evidence is that there is a relationship between Genesis and surrounding stories. But there is nothing further to say that Genesis is plagiarism, because it is so fundamentally different from those surrounding stories that we're looking at a new work.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 04:37:05']In answer to your question, 'Are both genetic descendants of some earlier flood story?' No, as I've just explained to you, the Enuma Elish, is not a flood story, nor is it biological and contains genes as something that was 'genetic' would, but the Enuma Elish would appear to be a 'generic' decendant of the Sumarian creation myth, found on an ancient clay tablet known as the 'Eridu Genesis' which although it is fragmentory, contains enough to show it is at least related to the Enuma Elish, (which makes sense because 'Sumarian' is after all simply the earlier culture to 'Babylonian' in the area of Mesopotamia, effectively, the Sumarians became the Babylonians) and because general concensus says that Eridu Genesis pre-dates both Enuma Elish and Genesis, then yes, it is likely that they are both decendants of 'Eridu Genesis'. Infact, the general concensus in the field of history is that 'Eridu Genesis' is the 'oldest known' creation myth. [/QUOTE] "Descendants" is fine, and to my mind is clearly established. "Plagiarism" is the only thing I'm contesting.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 5:56am : I'm sorry bud, but if I'm questioned, I have to respond and most of this stuff cannot be said in just a couple of lines.
Maybe you would rather look at some of the specific points I made?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 05:56:08']I'm sorry bud, but if I'm questioned, I have to respond and most of this stuff cannot be said in just a couple of lines.[/QUOTE] Maybe you would rather look at some of the specific points I made?
i was going to respond, but this is getting a bit ridiculously complicated.
OK let's get this clear and get it out of the way. these freaking long posts are making things impossible to respond to.
first, Slacker: you went a bit too far saying "historical truth as we know it." as Stanley pointed out, that's pretty much impossible to say. however, in the context of the argument you were frustrated ( i think) so it's all good. you've never said that anywhere else as far as i know, so no big deal.
Stanley: by making choices about which scholars you agree with and presenting it as what you believe to be correct, you are in fact, acting alone. only you could make the choice to believe them to be correct, and therefore, your acting no different from Slacker in that regard, which s fine because we all act alone, even if we have a bunch of people who agree with us because we still made the choice on our own to follow that group. that was my point before. also, i feel that Slacker has been responding to your specific points.
NOW!! let's end this 5 post crap. it makes these debates TOTALLY inaccessible to anyone else. Slacker, I understand that you had to respond, and Stanley I know that you felt obligated to speak, but why not try personal messages? or e-mails? we don't need an argument about this sorta stuff right here in a forum. unless y'all want me to make a "Slacker and Stanley yell at each other" thread.
and for our enjoyment:
i was going to respond, but this is getting a bit ridiculously complicated.
OK let's get this clear and get it out of the way. these freaking long posts are making things impossible to respond to.
first, Slacker: you went a bit too far saying "historical truth as we know it." as Stanley pointed out, that's pretty much impossible to say. however, in the context of the argument you were frustrated ( i think) so it's all good. you've never said that anywhere else as far as i know, so no big deal.
Stanley: by making choices about which scholars you agree with and presenting it as what you believe to be correct, you are in fact, acting alone. only you could make the choice to believe them to be correct, and therefore, your acting no different from Slacker in that regard, which s fine because we all act alone, even if we have a bunch of people who agree with us because we still made the choice on our own to follow that group. that was my point before. also, i feel that Slacker has been responding to your specific points.
NOW!! let's end this 5 post crap. it makes these debates TOTALLY inaccessible to anyone else. Slacker, I understand that you had to respond, and Stanley I know that you felt obligated to speak, but why not try personal messages? or e-mails? we don't need an argument about this sorta stuff right here in a forum. unless y'all want me to make a "Slacker and Stanley yell at each other" thread.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 7:49pm : I've made an exclusively negative claim, i.e. that Slacker is wrong to say that he has presented "the historic truth as we know it." I'm not saying that I, alternatively, am presenting "the historic truth as we know it." I'm just saying that he's not. I can't be said to be "acting alone" in the relevant sense, then, because I don't claim to have a public consensus behind me.
So, you're basicaly saying that you have no opinion on what is the historical truth as we know it because you don't actualy claim to know what the historical truth as we know it is, and even if you did know, the public concensus wouldn't support you... but you're absolutely cirtain that I'm incorrect?
So do you claim that historians have to change their opinion on what is generaly regarded as accepted history when it doesn't happen to agree with Christian tradition or doctrine?
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm : Further, most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity, just as Slacker does.
No I don't, I can't help what the history books say, it's not my fault if there are contradictions between history as we know it and cirtain parts of Christianity. I'm not sure you understand exactly what the term historical truth 'as we know it' means. All it means is that it's a general concensus among historians. We all admit it's open to individual interpretation and the generaly accepted concensus can, and often does, change. The term 'historical truth as we know it doesn't actualy nail something down and say, 'This is definately how it happened' just, 'This is how we "think" it happened.' It's actualy a very loose term, so I'm puzzled by exactly what your problem with the term is. You act as if I've actualy said, 'This is how it is and your all wrong.' when infact, nothing can be further from the truth.
Also, saying 'most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity' really is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. It's not like there are legions of active evil atheists all trying to tear down Christianity, most of 'em couldn't give a hoot what Christian opinion is, they simply tend to see it as 'nothing to do with me'. I personaly quite like Christians and tend to get along quite well with them, apart from when they assume I'm some sort of immoral sinner just because I'm an atheist of course, I admire their practicaly Buddhist approach to the sanctity of life, compassion for others and rejection of violence and I assure you, I'm not part of some insidious plot to take down Christianity. I have no qualms with what other people choose to believe but I feel that thare are definately some issues within cirtain parts of Christian belief that needs addressing. Cirtain parts just don't ring true with history, for instance the birth of Jesus during both the reign of Herod the Great and the Census of Quirinius, when the Census of Quirinius is recorded as happening 10 years after Herod's death. Both versions cannot be true, yet that is exactly what most of Christianity claims. In my opinion, it's obviously time for a re-think within the faith in an attempt to clear up such questions.
It's happened before, the Catholic church now fully accepts the heliocentric orbit of earth around the sun and the existence of evolution, both of which they didn't used to.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 7:49pm : I've made an exclusively negative claim, i.e. that Slacker is wrong to say that he has presented "the historic truth as we know it." I'm not saying that I, alternatively, am presenting "the historic truth as we know it." I'm just saying that he's not. I can't be said to be "acting alone" in the relevant sense, then, because I don't claim to have a public consensus behind me.
So, you're basicaly saying that you have no opinion on what is the historical truth as we know it because you don't actualy claim to know what the historical truth as we know it is, and even if you did know, the public concensus wouldn't support you... but you're absolutely cirtain that I'm incorrect?
So do you claim that historians have to change their opinion on what is generaly regarded as accepted history when it doesn't happen to agree with Christian tradition or doctrine?
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 7:34pm : Further, most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity, just as Slacker does.
No I don't, I can't help what the history books say, it's not my fault if there are contradictions between history as we know it and cirtain parts of Christianity. I'm not sure you understand exactly what the term historical truth 'as we know it' means. All it means is that it's a general concensus among historians. We all admit it's open to individual interpretation and the generaly accepted concensus can, and often does, change. The term 'historical truth as we know it doesn't actualy nail something down and say, 'This is definately how it happened' just, 'This is how we "think" it happened.' It's actualy a very loose term, so I'm puzzled by exactly what your problem with the term is. You act as if I've actualy said, 'This is how it is and your all wrong.' when infact, nothing can be further from the truth.
Also, saying 'most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity' really is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. It's not like there are legions of active evil atheists all trying to tear down Christianity, most of 'em couldn't give a hoot what Christian opinion is, they simply tend to see it as 'nothing to do with me'. I personaly quite like Christians and tend to get along quite well with them, apart from when they assume I'm some sort of immoral sinner just because I'm an atheist of course, I admire their practicaly Buddhist approach to the sanctity of life, compassion for others and rejection of violence and I assure you, I'm not part of some insidious plot to take down Christianity. I have no qualms with what other people choose to believe but I feel that thare are definately some issues within cirtain parts of Christian belief that needs addressing. Cirtain parts just don't ring true with history, for instance the birth of Jesus during both the reign of Herod the Great and the Census of Quirinius, when the Census of Quirinius is recorded as happening 10 years after Herod's death. Both versions cannot be true, yet that is exactly what most of Christianity claims. In my opinion, it's obviously time for a re-think within the faith in an attempt to clear up such questions.
It's happened before, the Catholic church now fully accepts the heliocentric orbit of earth around the sun and the existence of evolution, both of which they didn't used to.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 8:01pm : "Descendants" is fine, and to my mind is clearly established. "Plagiarism" is the only thing I'm contesting.
I admit it's a term I've used a lot, usualy in this context, 'You could almost call it plagiarism it's that close.'
Again, like the term 'History as we know it', it's actualy a very loose term, just a figure of speech to emphasise how closely something is related.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 8:01pm : "Descendants" is fine, and to my mind is clearly established. "Plagiarism" is the only thing I'm contesting.
I admit it's a term I've used a lot, usualy in this context, 'You could almost call it plagiarism it's that close.'
Again, like the term 'History as we know it', it's actualy a very loose term, just a figure of speech to emphasise how closely something is related.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:25pm : Slacker, you quoted me as saying that, but that was Stanley's words, which you probably know and just used the wrong quote thingy
Cheers for pointing that out, I hadn't actualy noticed, but I've fixed it now.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:25pm : Slacker, you quoted me as saying that, but that was Stanley's words, which you probably know and just used the wrong quote thingy
Cheers for pointing that out, I hadn't actualy noticed, but I've fixed it now.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 8:28pm : OK let's get this clear and get it out of the way. these freaking long posts are making things impossible to respond to.
If you'd prefer we can focus on one topic at a time. Read back through my posts and pick one -- no problem.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 8:28pm : Stanley: by making choices about which scholars you agree with and presenting it as what you believe to be correct, you are in fact, acting alone. only you could make the choice to believe them to be correct, and therefore, your acting no different from Slacker in that regard, which s fine because we all act alone, even if we have a bunch of people who agree with us because we still made the choice on our own to follow that group. that was my point before.
This is what you said last time, so I'll offer the same response: The basic premise of most of what Slacker has said is, "This is history as it is, so believe it and get on with it." (This is the effect of saying that the Catholic Church has made its peace with evolutionary theory.) Of course, parts of critical scholarship -- which therefore includes parts of what he says -- are well-recognized by Christians; one could hardly have read anything by Pope John Paul II without coming across this fact.
But then there are other things that we just don't buy. We don't buy that Christianity was cobbled together from mystery religions in order to serve the Empire's ends. We don't buy that Genesis is in no fundamental way different from the surrounding ANE literature. And so on.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 8:28pm : also, i feel that Slacker has been responding to your specific points.
I doubt he would say that he has. We haven't talked about his retelling of the Crusades, or the multiple authorship of Luke, or Isaiah 7:14 -- or any of the other specifics of my original posts. And of course I understand why we haven't; no problem there. I'm just saying that if you'd like less text to deal with, let's focus on one of those in particular.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 8:28pm : NOW!! let's end this 5 post crap. it makes these debates TOTALLY inaccessible to anyone else. Slacker, I understand that you had to respond, and Stanley I know that you felt obligated to speak, but why not try personal messages? or e-mails? we don't need an argument about this sorta stuff right here in a forum. unless y'all want me to make a "Slacker and Stanley yell at each other" thread.
Well, this thread was made just for Slacker, so that would be to some extent its purpose, haha.
My main purpose is the following: The internet is a place with zero accountability, making it a great place for uneducated people to get totally confused. I don't want some teenager to walk in this thread and think that what Slacker has been saying is in fact "the historic truth as we know it." Some things he has said are true -- of course. But then you look back at your ignorant pastor who was trained at some seminary where all they teach you is how not to get Left Behind and you think that Christianity must be baloney, that this real historical truth gets rid of it all. But it doesn't.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-24 20:28:49']OK let's get this clear and get it out of the way. these freaking long posts are making things impossible to respond to.[/quote] If you'd prefer we can focus on one topic at a time. Read back through my posts and pick one -- no problem.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-24 20:28:49']Stanley: by making choices about which scholars you agree with and presenting it as what you believe to be correct, you are in fact, acting alone. only you could make the choice to believe them to be correct, and therefore, your acting no different from Slacker in that regard, which s fine because we all act alone, even if we have a bunch of people who agree with us because we still made the choice on our own to follow that group. that was my point before.[/quote] This is what you said last time, so I'll offer the same response: The basic premise of most of what Slacker has said is, "This is history as it is, so believe it and get on with it." (This is the effect of saying that the Catholic Church has made its peace with evolutionary theory.) Of course, parts of critical scholarship -- which therefore includes parts of what he says -- are well-recognized by Christians; one could hardly have read anything by Pope John Paul II without coming across this fact.
But then there are other things that we just don't buy. We don't buy that Christianity was cobbled together from mystery religions in order to serve the Empire's ends. We don't buy that Genesis is in no fundamental way different from the surrounding ANE literature. And so on.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-24 20:28:49']also, i feel that Slacker has been responding to your specific points.[/quote] I doubt he would say that he has. We haven't talked about his retelling of the Crusades, or the multiple authorship of Luke, or Isaiah 7:14 -- or any of the other specifics of my original posts. And of course I understand why we haven't; no problem there. I'm just saying that if you'd like less text to deal with, let's focus on one of those in particular.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-08-24 20:28:49']NOW!! let's end this 5 post crap. it makes these debates TOTALLY inaccessible to anyone else. Slacker, I understand that you had to respond, and Stanley I know that you felt obligated to speak, but why not try personal messages? or e-mails? we don't need an argument about this sorta stuff right here in a forum. unless y'all want me to make a "Slacker and Stanley yell at each other" thread.[/quote] Well, this thread was made just for Slacker, so that would be to some extent its purpose, haha.
My main purpose is the following: The internet is a place with zero accountability, making it a great place for uneducated people to get totally confused. I don't want some teenager to walk in this thread and think that what Slacker has been saying is in fact "the historic truth as we know it." Some things he has said are true -- of course. But then you look back at your ignorant pastor who was trained at some seminary where all they teach you is how not to get Left Behind and you think that Christianity must be baloney, that this real historical truth gets rid of it all. But it doesn't.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : So, you're basicaly saying that you have no opinion on what is the historical truth as we know it because you don't actualy claim to know what the historical truth as we know it is, and even if you did know, the public concensus wouldn't support you... but you're absolutely cirtain that I'm incorrect?
I'm certain that what you're saying is not settled truth, like the fact that the Holocaust occurred or that the Roman Empire fell.
In fact I largely think that the "public consensus" would agree with my criticisms of you: Christianity is not a mystery religion copy, the Crusades were not warmongering Christians attacking peaceful Turks, etc. But of course I more than admit that scholars change their minds all the time. So I'm not so much trying to say, "Look, if you'll just believe what all these scholars are telling you then you'll have to agree with me!" I'm just making the simple claim that what you're saying is not settled history.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : So do you claim that historians have to change their opinion on what is generaly regarded as accepted history when it doesn't happen to agree with Christian tradition or doctrine?
No.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : No I don't, I can't help what the history books say, it's not my fault if there are contradictions between history as we know it and cirtain parts of Christianity. I'm not sure you understand exactly what the term historical truth 'as we know it' means. All it means is that it's a general concensus among historians. We all admit it's open to individual interpretation and the generaly accepted concensus can, and often does, change. The term 'historical truth as we know it doesn't actualy nail something down and say, 'This is definately how it happened' just, 'This is how we "think" it happened.' It's actualy a very loose term, so I'm puzzled by exactly what your problem with the term is. You act as if I've actualy said, 'This is how it is and your all wrong.' when infact, nothing can be further from the truth.
But clearly you assign more weight to it than that, because later you say that Christians should come to accomodate the things you're saying as true.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : Also, saying 'most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity' really is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. It's not like there are legions of active evil atheists all trying to tear down Christianity, most of 'em couldn't give a hoot what Christian opinion is, they simply tend to see it as 'nothing to do with me'. I personaly quite like Christians and tend to get along quite well with them, apart from when they assume I'm some sort of immoral sinner just because I'm an atheist of course, I admire their practicaly Buddhist approach to the sanctity of life, compassion for others and rejection of violence and I assure you, I'm not part of some insidious plot to take down Christianity.
I'm not sure how you read that out of "a wedge between Jesus and Xianity." I'm just talking about scholars, who obviously are quite interested in their chosen areas of study, not "legions of active evil atheists." For that matter, personally I don't normally think of atheists when I think of people who aren't Christians.
These scholars write books with titles like "From Jesus to Christ" and "From Jesus to Christianity." They think Jesus was a nice moralistic sage, but he was turned into the divine savior of orthodox Christianity by the movement which grew in the wake of his death.
As for conspiracy theories, well, yes, I do admit that most of the early historical-critical speculation wanted Christianity to be one big conspiracy theory, and the reverberations of that unfortunate beginning have yet to be shaken out entirely.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : I have no qualms with what other people choose to believe but I feel that thare are definately some issues within cirtain parts of Christian belief that needs addressing. Cirtain parts just don't ring true with history, for instance the birth of Jesus during both the reign of Herod the Great and the Census of Quirinius, when the Census of Quirinius is recorded as happening 10 years after Herod's death. Both versions cannot be true, yet that is exactly what most of Christianity claims. In my opinion, it's obviously time for a re-think within the faith in an attempt to clear up such questions.
These kinds of things are more than recognized among Christian scholars. If you're looking for Roman Catholics, just check out the aforementioned John Paul II or Raymond Brown.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 21:15:50']So, you're basicaly saying that you have no opinion on what is the historical truth as we know it because you don't actualy claim to know what the historical truth as we know it is, and even if you did know, the public concensus wouldn't support you... but you're absolutely cirtain that I'm incorrect?[/quote] I'm certain that what you're saying is not settled truth, like the fact that the Holocaust occurred or that the Roman Empire fell.
In fact I largely think that the "public consensus" would agree with my criticisms of you: Christianity is not a mystery religion copy, the Crusades were not warmongering Christians attacking peaceful Turks, etc. But of course I more than admit that scholars change their minds all the time. So I'm not so much trying to say, "Look, if you'll just believe what all these scholars are telling you then you'll have to agree with me!" I'm just making the simple claim that what you're saying is not settled history.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 21:15:50']So do you claim that historians have to change their opinion on what is generaly regarded as accepted history when it doesn't happen to agree with Christian tradition or doctrine? [/quote] No.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 21:15:50']No I don't, I can't help what the history books say, it's not my fault if there are contradictions between history as we know it and cirtain parts of Christianity. I'm not sure you understand exactly what the term historical truth 'as we know it' means. All it means is that it's a general concensus among historians. We all admit it's open to individual interpretation and the generaly accepted concensus can, and often does, change. The term 'historical truth as we know it doesn't actualy nail something down and say, 'This is definately how it happened' just, 'This is how we "think" it happened.' It's actualy a very loose term, so I'm puzzled by exactly what your problem with the term is. You act as if I've actualy said, 'This is how it is and your all wrong.' when infact, nothing can be further from the truth.[/quote] But clearly you assign more weight to it than that, because later you say that Christians should come to accomodate the things you're saying as true.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 21:15:50']Also, saying 'most scholars today want there to be a wedge between Jesus and Christianity' really is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. It's not like there are legions of active evil atheists all trying to tear down Christianity, most of 'em couldn't give a hoot what Christian opinion is, they simply tend to see it as 'nothing to do with me'. I personaly quite like Christians and tend to get along quite well with them, apart from when they assume I'm some sort of immoral sinner just because I'm an atheist of course, I admire their practicaly Buddhist approach to the sanctity of life, compassion for others and rejection of violence and I assure you, I'm not part of some insidious plot to take down Christianity.[/quote] I'm not sure how you read that out of "a wedge between Jesus and Xianity." I'm just talking about scholars, who obviously are quite interested in their chosen areas of study, not "legions of active evil atheists." For that matter, personally I don't normally think of atheists when I think of people who aren't Christians.
These scholars write books with titles like "From Jesus to Christ" and "From Jesus to Christianity." They think Jesus was a nice moralistic sage, but he was turned into the divine savior of orthodox Christianity by the movement which grew in the wake of his death.
As for conspiracy theories, well, yes, I do admit that most of the early historical-critical speculation wanted Christianity to be one big conspiracy theory, and the reverberations of that unfortunate beginning have yet to be shaken out entirely.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-24 21:15:50']I have no qualms with what other people choose to believe but I feel that thare are definately some issues within cirtain parts of Christian belief that needs addressing. Cirtain parts just don't ring true with history, for instance the birth of Jesus during both the reign of Herod the Great and the Census of Quirinius, when the Census of Quirinius is recorded as happening 10 years after Herod's death. Both versions cannot be true, yet that is exactly what most of Christianity claims. In my opinion, it's obviously time for a re-think within the faith in an attempt to clear up such questions.[/quote] These kinds of things are more than recognized among Christian scholars. If you're looking for Roman Catholics, just check out the aforementioned John Paul II or Raymond Brown.
Well, unfortunately, I like to quote you in full, and because of those extended quotes I hit the word limit on that last post. Let me finish it out:
SlackerBabbath wrote It's happened before, the Catholic church now fully accepts the
heliocentric orbit of earth around the sun and the existence of
evolution, both of which they didn't used to.
In context these don't really say what you want them to say, though. The heliocentric model we have today was developed in contrast to pagan cosmology (Aristotle/Ptolemy), not Christian cosmology. It drew on a tradition of Christian scientific speculation that went back to the early Medieval era and really picked up in the high Middle Ages. And it was developed in Christian universities by scientists who were Christians, of one sort or another. Churchmen were more willing to believe what was written by Brahe and Kepler than by Galileo, of course, but that's because Brahe and Kepler were careful and used actual evidence where Galileo was in point of fact quite wrong. But this means simply that Christians didn't believe in the heliocentric orbit of the earth only because it hadn't yet been discovered.
As for evolutionary theory, clearly it was not a Christian discovery, modeled as it was after capitalism. Even so, we mustn't let the hysteria of modern fundamentalists obscure what actually happened. Even those at the bastion of conservatism that was Old Princeton were more than willing to accomodate evolutionary theory, and Roman Catholic theologian Teilhard de Chardin went so far as to base all of his work on evolution. The fallout of today's crass scientific positivism should not prevent us from seeing that, again, in the development of evolutionary theory Christians were not dogmatically and superstitiously dragging their heels.
To get back to the point at hand: Sure, certain modern evangelicals have so bought into scientific positivism that they are afraid to admit that the Bible and Christianity are fully human, as if that would prevent them from also being fully divine. But the logic of the incarnation demands we recognize that God's work and word are fully human AND fully divine, and for that reason Christians have been engaging with and working on historical-critical scholarship since its inception.
Well, unfortunately, I like to quote you in full, and because of those extended quotes I hit the word limit on that last post. Let me finish it out:
[quote u='SlackerBabbath']It's happened before, the Catholic church now fully accepts the
heliocentric orbit of earth around the sun and the existence of
evolution, both of which they didn't used to.[/quote] In context these don't really say what you want them to say, though. The heliocentric model we have today was developed in contrast to pagan cosmology (Aristotle/Ptolemy), not Christian cosmology. It drew on a tradition of Christian scientific speculation that went back to the early Medieval era and really picked up in the high Middle Ages. And it was developed in Christian universities by scientists who were Christians, of one sort or another. Churchmen were more willing to believe what was written by Brahe and Kepler than by Galileo, of course, but that's because Brahe and Kepler were careful and used actual evidence where Galileo was in point of fact quite wrong. But this means simply that Christians didn't believe in the heliocentric orbit of the earth only because it hadn't yet been discovered.
As for evolutionary theory, clearly it was not a Christian discovery, modeled as it was after capitalism. Even so, we mustn't let the hysteria of modern fundamentalists obscure what actually happened. Even those at the bastion of conservatism that was Old Princeton were more than willing to accomodate evolutionary theory, and Roman Catholic theologian Teilhard de Chardin went so far as to base all of his work on evolution. The fallout of today's crass scientific positivism should not prevent us from seeing that, again, in the development of evolutionary theory Christians were not dogmatically and superstitiously dragging their heels.
To get back to the point at hand: Sure, certain modern evangelicals have so bought into scientific positivism that they are afraid to admit that the Bible and Christianity are fully human, as if that would prevent them from also being fully divine. But the logic of the incarnation demands we recognize that God's work and word are fully human AND fully divine, and for that reason Christians have been engaging with and working on historical-critical scholarship since its inception.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 9:08pm : The basic premise of most of what Slacker has said is, "This is history as it is, so believe it and get on with it."
That realy isn't my intention if that's how you read it. I come more from the point of view that this is the general concesus of historians, so it'd be nice if that concensus was answered with workable, feasable, logical argument that contains as much evidence as the historic sources do.
Not once have I said, 'believe it and get on with it' but rather 'show me a good reason not to believe this version by supplying evidence that contradicts it from the Christian viewpoint.'
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 9:08pm :
(This is the effect of saying that the Catholic Church has made its peace with evolutionary theory.) Of course, parts of critical scholarship -- which therefore includes parts of what he says -- are well-recognized by Christians; one could hardly have read anything by Pope John Paul II without coming across this fact.
But then there are other things that we just don't buy. We don't buy that Christianity was cobbled together from mystery religions in order to serve the Empire's ends. We don't buy that Genesis is in no fundamental way different from the surrounding ANE literature. And so on.
Yes, I understand that, my question is, 'Why' don't you buy it? What evidence can you provide to counter the historical evidence?
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 9:08pm : I doubt he would say that he has. We haven't talked about his retelling of the Crusades, or the multiple authorship of Luke, or Isaiah 7:14 -- or any of the other specifics of my original posts. And of course I understand why we haven't; no problem there. I'm just saying that if you'd like less text to deal with, let's focus on one of those in particular.
What's to tell? I havent 'retold' anything as far as I'm aware, but simply told it as the majority of historians understand it, so far all you've basicaly said is that I'm wrong but you haven't actualy offered up any evidence to counter my argument.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 9:08pm : The basic premise of most of what Slacker has said is, "This is history as it is, so believe it and get on with it."
That realy isn't my intention if that's how you read it. I come more from the point of view that this is the general concesus of historians, so it'd be nice if that concensus was answered with workable, feasable, logical argument that contains as much evidence as the historic sources do.
Not once have I said, 'believe it and get on with it' but rather 'show me a good reason not to believe this version by supplying evidence that contradicts it from the Christian viewpoint.'
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 9:08pm :
(This is the effect of saying that the Catholic Church has made its peace with evolutionary theory.) Of course, parts of critical scholarship -- which therefore includes parts of what he says -- are well-recognized by Christians; one could hardly have read anything by Pope John Paul II without coming across this fact.
But then there are other things that we just don't buy. We don't buy that Christianity was cobbled together from mystery religions in order to serve the Empire's ends. We don't buy that Genesis is in no fundamental way different from the surrounding ANE literature. And so on.
Yes, I understand that, my question is, 'Why' don't you buy it? What evidence can you provide to counter the historical evidence?
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 9:08pm : I doubt he would say that he has. We haven't talked about his retelling of the Crusades, or the multiple authorship of Luke, or Isaiah 7:14 -- or any of the other specifics of my original posts. And of course I understand why we haven't; no problem there. I'm just saying that if you'd like less text to deal with, let's focus on one of those in particular.
What's to tell? I havent 'retold' anything as far as I'm aware, but simply told it as the majority of historians understand it, so far all you've basicaly said is that I'm wrong but you haven't actualy offered up any evidence to counter my argument.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : So, you're basicaly saying that you have no opinion on what is the historical truth as we know it because you don't actualy claim to know what the historical truth as we know it is, and even if you did know, the public concensus wouldn't support you... but you're absolutely cirtain that I'm incorrect?
I'm certain that what you're saying is not settled truth, like the fact that the Holocaust occurred or that the Roman Empire fell.
Again, I'll have to repeat this. That's why the term 'historical truth' has the addition 'as we know it.' It states that no version of history is ever truly settled but can change upon the discovery of new evidence that counters the old evidence.
History is infact a constantly changing thng.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 10:04pm :
In fact I largely think that the "public consensus" would agree with my criticisms of you: Christianity is not a mystery religion copy, the Crusades were not warmongering Christians attacking peaceful Turks, etc.
Now who's making claims of definate history? Are you claiming that history is unsettled if I'm quoting it but settled if you quote it?
I have already given evidence that counters both those claims, but so far your only countering argument is 'You're wrong!'
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 10:04pm :
But of course I more than admit that scholars change their minds all the time. So I'm not so much trying to say, "Look, if you'll just believe what all these scholars are telling you then you'll have to agree with me!" I'm just making the simple claim that what you're saying is not settled history.
Once again, that's why the term 'historical truth' has the addition 'as we know it.' It states that no version of history is ever truly settled but can change upon the discovery of new evidence that counters the old evidence.
History is infact a constantly changing thing.
I have never stated that my version of history is 'settled' but simply 'as we understand it at the moment' and that I tend to follow the current historic concensus. I do occasionaly come up with my own theories, but I always try to make it clear that this is my own theory.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 10:04pm :
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : So, you're basicaly saying that you have no opinion on what is the historical truth as we know it because you don't actualy claim to know what the historical truth as we know it is, and even if you did know, the public concensus wouldn't support you... but you're absolutely cirtain that I'm incorrect?
I'm certain that what you're saying is not settled truth, like the fact that the Holocaust occurred or that the Roman Empire fell.
Again, I'll have to repeat this. That's why the term 'historical truth' has the addition 'as we know it.' It states that no version of history is ever truly settled but can change upon the discovery of new evidence that counters the old evidence.
History is infact a constantly changing thng.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 10:04pm :
In fact I largely think that the "public consensus" would agree with my criticisms of you: Christianity is not a mystery religion copy, the Crusades were not warmongering Christians attacking peaceful Turks, etc.
Now who's making claims of definate history? Are you claiming that history is unsettled if I'm quoting it but settled if you quote it?
I have already given evidence that counters both those claims, but so far your only countering argument is 'You're wrong!'
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 10:04pm :
But of course I more than admit that scholars change their minds all the time. So I'm not so much trying to say, "Look, if you'll just believe what all these scholars are telling you then you'll have to agree with me!" I'm just making the simple claim that what you're saying is not settled history.
Once again, that's why the term 'historical truth' has the addition 'as we know it.' It states that no version of history is ever truly settled but can change upon the discovery of new evidence that counters the old evidence.
History is infact a constantly changing thing.
I have never stated that my version of history is 'settled' but simply 'as we understand it at the moment' and that I tend to follow the current historic concensus. I do occasionaly come up with my own theories, but I always try to make it clear that this is my own theory.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : I have no qualms with what other people choose to believe but I feel that thare are definately some issues within cirtain parts of Christian belief that needs addressing. Cirtain parts just don't ring true with history, for instance the birth of Jesus during both the reign of Herod the Great and the Census of Quirinius, when the Census of Quirinius is recorded as happening 10 years after Herod's death. Both versions cannot be true, yet that is exactly what most of Christianity claims. In my opinion, it's obviously time for a re-think within the faith in an attempt to clear up such questions.
Stanley151 wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 10:18pm : These kinds of things are more than recognized among Christian scholars. If you're looking for Roman Catholics, just check out the aforementioned John Paul II or Raymond Brown.
Do you know what the most common Christian argument (from both Christian scholars and everyday Chistians alike) for the Quirinius question is?
It's that Quirinius must have acted as a governer under Herod's rule sometime around 6BC shortly before Herod's death in 4BC.
A look at Quirinius career (courtesy of Tacitus) tells us that between 14BC and 12BC Quirinius was governor of Crete and Cyrene. Then in 12BC he returned to Rome and served as a 'consul' there. (Effectively 'heads of Roman government', there were two consuls, and they ruled together. However, after the establishment of the Empire, the Consuls were merely a figurative representative of Rome’s republican heritage and held very little power and authority, with the Emperor acting as the supreme leader. The position was held for only 12 months, after which two new consuls were elected, coins dated to 11BC with Quirinius' name on them as consul confirms this.)
After that he became 'Legatus' of Galatia, a position similar to a 'military general' but in a province with only one legion, as in the case of Galatia, the Legatus was also the provincial governor. Between 6 and 3 BC (the time when most Christians claim he was acting as governor of Syria under Herod's rule) the Roman records say he was still there, far, far away from Syria, leading a 3 year military campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia in modern day North/West Turkey.
Quirinius was only appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus (Herod the Great's son and successor) in 6AD.
Also, under Roman law, any exercise of imperium (authority) by any governor in any province other than their own was highly illegal, (it was a way to stop governors seizing enough provinces to form their own nations and become powerful enough to turn against Rome... totaly paranoid, but tacticaly brilliant) infact it was practicaly an act of treason, and seeing as how Quirinius was acting as the governor of Galatia and Herod the Great, as a Roman client king was effectively, and more importantly, 'legaly', the 'governor' of Judea (even though to the Jews he was regarded as the king, to the Romans who placed him in power, he was officialy regarded as a 'Tetrarch' which was a provincial 'governor' in a country composed of several smaller parts) during the period of 6-4BC, a census carried out by the 'governor of Galatia', (Quirinius) in the governor of Judea's (Herod) province would be highly illegal.
So you see, it would appear to be impossible that the Census of Quirinius could have happened during Herod's reign, it could only have happened from 6AD onwards, at least ten years after Herod's recorded death.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 24th, 2009 at 9:15pm : I have no qualms with what other people choose to believe but I feel that thare are definately some issues within cirtain parts of Christian belief that needs addressing. Cirtain parts just don't ring true with history, for instance the birth of Jesus during both the reign of Herod the Great and the Census of Quirinius, when the Census of Quirinius is recorded as happening 10 years after Herod's death. Both versions cannot be true, yet that is exactly what most of Christianity claims. In my opinion, it's obviously time for a re-think within the faith in an attempt to clear up such questions.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-08-25 22:18:55'] These kinds of things are more than recognized among Christian scholars. If you're looking for Roman Catholics, just check out the aforementioned John Paul II or Raymond Brown.[/QUOTE]
Do you know what the most common Christian argument (from both Christian scholars and everyday Chistians alike) for the Quirinius question is?
It's that Quirinius must have acted as a governer under Herod's rule sometime around 6BC shortly before Herod's death in 4BC.
A look at Quirinius career (courtesy of Tacitus) tells us that between 14BC and 12BC Quirinius was governor of Crete and Cyrene. Then in 12BC he returned to Rome and served as a 'consul' there. (Effectively 'heads of Roman government', there were two consuls, and they ruled together. However, after the establishment of the Empire, the Consuls were merely a figurative representative of Rome’s republican heritage and held very little power and authority, with the Emperor acting as the supreme leader. The position was held for only 12 months, after which two new consuls were elected, coins dated to 11BC with Quirinius' name on them as consul confirms this.)
After that he became 'Legatus' of Galatia, a position similar to a 'military general' but in a province with only one legion, as in the case of Galatia, the Legatus was also the provincial governor. Between 6 and 3 BC (the time when most Christians claim he was acting as governor of Syria under Herod's rule) the Roman records say he was still there, far, far away from Syria, leading a 3 year military campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia in modern day North/West Turkey.
Quirinius was only appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus (Herod the Great's son and successor) in 6AD.
Also, under Roman law, any exercise of imperium (authority) by any governor in any province other than their own was highly illegal, (it was a way to stop governors seizing enough provinces to form their own nations and become powerful enough to turn against Rome... totaly paranoid, but tacticaly brilliant) infact it was practicaly an act of treason, and seeing as how Quirinius was acting as the governor of Galatia and Herod the Great, as a Roman client king was effectively, and more importantly, 'legaly', the 'governor' of Judea (even though to the Jews he was regarded as the king, to the Romans who placed him in power, he was officialy regarded as a 'Tetrarch' which was a provincial 'governor' in a country composed of several smaller parts) during the period of 6-4BC, a census carried out by the 'governor of Galatia', (Quirinius) in the governor of Judea's (Herod) province would be highly illegal.
So you see, it would appear to be impossible that the Census of Quirinius could have happened during Herod's reign, it could only have happened from 6AD onwards, at least ten years after Herod's recorded death.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 10:01am : Screw it. *grabs popcorn and a drink* I'll just sit and watch
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 10:17am : Just my 2c here boys....
History and truth do not belong in the same sentence.....ever....
History and facts....that's a whole other ball game.
That's why we say 'Historical truth as we know it.' Like 'Judicial truth', it is a truth based upon a general concensus based on evidence.
I noticed in the other thread that you said that you 'believe the carbon dating is a load of crap' Fair enough, if you just use one dating technique like carbon dating, you can never be absolutely cirtain of it's accuracy, a mistake might have been made causing cross contamination or the technique itself could be flawed without you knowing. But if another different technique is used for dating and you come up with a similar figure, it corroborates the first figure and helps to confirm the original finding while at the same time confirming the accuracy of the first technique.
Add another dozen techniques and the science of dating becomes very accurate indeed, which is what we have done. This makes modern dating techniques practicaly infallable, if they are used correctly.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 10:01am : Screw it. *grabs popcorn and a drink* I'll just sit and watch
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 10:17am : Just my 2c here boys....
History and truth do not belong in the same sentence.....ever....
History and facts....that's a whole other ball game.
That's why we say 'Historical truth as we know it.' Like 'Judicial truth', it is a truth based upon a general concensus based on evidence.
I noticed in the other thread that you said that you 'believe the carbon dating is a load of crap' Fair enough, if you just use one dating technique like carbon dating, you can never be absolutely cirtain of it's accuracy, a mistake might have been made causing cross contamination or the technique itself could be flawed without you knowing. But if another different technique is used for dating and you come up with a similar figure, it corroborates the first figure and helps to confirm the original finding while at the same time confirming the accuracy of the first technique.
Add another dozen techniques and the science of dating becomes very accurate indeed, which is what we have done. This makes modern dating techniques practicaly infallable, if they are used correctly.
Slacker, that is not true at all. The whole process of dating things is flawed. Without knowing the condition of the specimen being studied prior to testing, nothing can be determined 100%. There are so many examples out there of things that were "thought" to be of a certain age, and carbon dating as well as several other tests came up with ridiculous figures. There are even cases where a specimen of a KNOWN age is dated, and the figures are remarkably off. I do not claim that this was invented to disprove the Bible etc, please note that. I am sure that at some point these were trusted, but now with modern science being more and more transparent etc, it is harder and harder to trust their findings.
For example, the whole "dating by where it is in the rock" method is all messed up. It is cyclic reasoning....they date the rock by what they find in it....but they date what they find in the rock....by where it is in the rock....??? That doesn't make sense at all.
Slacker, that is not true at all. The whole process of dating things is flawed. Without knowing the condition of the specimen being studied prior to testing, nothing can be determined 100%. There are so many examples out there of things that were "thought" to be of a certain age, and carbon dating as well as several other tests came up with ridiculous figures. There are even cases where a specimen of a KNOWN age is dated, and the figures are remarkably off. I do not claim that this was invented to disprove the Bible etc, please note that. I am sure that at some point these were trusted, but now with modern science being more and more transparent etc, it is harder and harder to trust their findings.
For example, the whole "dating by where it is in the rock" method is all messed up. It is cyclic reasoning....they date the rock by what they find in it....but they date what they find in the rock....by where it is in the rock....??? That doesn't make sense at all.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 12:03pm : ^ ok, hold that thought, and make a thread about it. We don't need two debates in one thread, but this would be a great discussion.
Wasn't this thread made because you guys were fed up of me debating in the other threads?
I was under the impression that this thread is for me to debate with you guys, so debate I shall.
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 11:34am : Slacker, that is not true at all. The whole process of dating things is flawed. Without knowing the condition of the specimen being studied prior to testing, nothing can be determined 100%. There are so many examples out there of things that were "thought" to be of a certain age, and carbon dating as well as several other tests came up with ridiculous figures. There are even cases where a specimen of a KNOWN age is dated, and the figures are remarkably off. I do not claim that this was invented to disprove the Bible etc, please note that. I am sure that at some point these were trusted, but now with modern science being more and more transparent etc, it is harder and harder to trust their findings.
For example, the whole "dating by where it is in the rock" method is all messed up. It is cyclic reasoning....they date the rock by what they find in it....but they date what they find in the rock....by where it is in the rock....??? That doesn't make sense at all.
Firstly, I'm not sure you understand carbon dating.
Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. Carbon-14 forms at a rate which is constant, so by measuring the radioactive emissions from once-living matter and comparing its activity with the equilibrium level of living things, a measurement of the time elapsed can be made.
Most earth that was formed in layers contains some form of matter that was once living. Pollen that was around when the layer was being formed is a favourite to look for. Which is how we can date layers of rock.
When something is found in a layer of rock, then we can make a rough estimate of it's age because o the layer it is found in, this is then either confirmed or disproven by carbon dating the biological matter in the earth surrounding it and if the object itself is made of wood, or bone, or tusk or any other biological matter, then it can be directly dated.
Of course, mistakes happen, so specimins are generaly dated by several different people in several different labs in order to achieve correlation. Also specimins are often dug up and incorrectly dated from their place in the earth's strata, possibly because it was buried by someone in the past, but the dating of the object itself in order to find correlation soon sorts that problem out, which is how you got to learn about mistakes being made, because they were succesfully re-dated. If they weren't, then obviously you wouldn't have heard they were mis-dated in the first place.
Now, if you don't believe in dating techniques, how can you believe in the dating technique used to correct a mistake?
bored_maniac33 wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 12:03pm : ^ ok, hold that thought, and make a thread about it. We don't need two debates in one thread, but this would be a great discussion.
Wasn't this thread made because you guys were fed up of me debating in the other threads?
I was under the impression that this thread is for me to debate with you guys, so debate I shall.
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 11:34am : Slacker, that is not true at all. The whole process of dating things is flawed. Without knowing the condition of the specimen being studied prior to testing, nothing can be determined 100%. There are so many examples out there of things that were "thought" to be of a certain age, and carbon dating as well as several other tests came up with ridiculous figures. There are even cases where a specimen of a KNOWN age is dated, and the figures are remarkably off. I do not claim that this was invented to disprove the Bible etc, please note that. I am sure that at some point these were trusted, but now with modern science being more and more transparent etc, it is harder and harder to trust their findings.
For example, the whole "dating by where it is in the rock" method is all messed up. It is cyclic reasoning....they date the rock by what they find in it....but they date what they find in the rock....by where it is in the rock....??? That doesn't make sense at all.
Firstly, I'm not sure you understand carbon dating.
Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. Carbon-14 forms at a rate which is constant, so by measuring the radioactive emissions from once-living matter and comparing its activity with the equilibrium level of living things, a measurement of the time elapsed can be made.
Most earth that was formed in layers contains some form of matter that was once living. Pollen that was around when the layer was being formed is a favourite to look for. Which is how we can date layers of rock.
When something is found in a layer of rock, then we can make a rough estimate of it's age because o the layer it is found in, this is then either confirmed or disproven by carbon dating the biological matter in the earth surrounding it and if the object itself is made of wood, or bone, or tusk or any other biological matter, then it can be directly dated.
Of course, mistakes happen, so specimins are generaly dated by several different people in several different labs in order to achieve correlation. Also specimins are often dug up and incorrectly dated from their place in the earth's strata, possibly because it was buried by someone in the past, but the dating of the object itself in order to find correlation soon sorts that problem out, which is how you got to learn about mistakes being made, because they were succesfully re-dated. If they weren't, then obviously you wouldn't have heard they were mis-dated in the first place.
Now, if you don't believe in dating techniques, how can you believe in the dating technique used to correct a mistake?
I'm not saying I don't believe in any dating techniques, however I am just saying that carbon dating and strata dating are terrible forms of dating....period.
I'm not saying I don't believe in any dating techniques, however I am just saying that carbon dating and strata dating are terrible forms of dating....period.
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 12:41pm : I'm not saying I don't believe in any dating techniques, however I am just saying that carbon dating and strata dating are terrible forms of dating....period.
The experts in the field of dating would disagree with you.
However, these are not the only forms of dating used. Clay pots and ornaments for instance can often be dated by style and also because clay often contains those same biological elements that can be carbon dated. Coins of course often have the date they were made printed on them.
Then there's dendrochronology for dating trees and objects made from wood, but also very important for corroborating radiocarbon dates.
Then there's thermoluminescence dating, which is the determination by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments).
Then there's potassium-argon dating (or K-Ar dating) which is a radiometric dating method which is based on the measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium, which is a common element found in many materials, such as micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites.
Then there's amino acid dating is a dating technique used to estimate the age of a specimen in paleobiology, archaeology, forensic science, and other fields. This technique relates changes in amino acid molecules to the time elapsed since they were formed.
The list goes on. Palaeomagnetism: The polarity of the Earth changes at a knowable rate. This polarity is stored within rocks, through this the rock can be dated
Tephrochronology: Volcanic ash has its own signature for each eruption. In a sedimentary sequence the associated material within the ash layer can be dated giving a date for the eruption.
The thing is, in most archeological sites, especialy large ones, most or even all of these techniques can be used and if they all point to a general date, then we have total correlation that's practicaly impossible to argue against. And if they all come up with the same date as carbon dating produces, then that can only confirm the accuracy of carbon dating.
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 12:41pm : I'm not saying I don't believe in any dating techniques, however I am just saying that carbon dating and strata dating are terrible forms of dating....period.
The experts in the field of dating would disagree with you.
However, these are not the only forms of dating used. Clay pots and ornaments for instance can often be dated by style and also because clay often contains those same biological elements that can be carbon dated. Coins of course often have the date they were made printed on them.
Then there's dendrochronology for dating trees and objects made from wood, but also very important for corroborating radiocarbon dates.
Then there's thermoluminescence dating, which is the determination by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments).
Then there's potassium-argon dating (or K-Ar dating) which is a radiometric dating method which is based on the measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium, which is a common element found in many materials, such as micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites.
Then there's amino acid dating is a dating technique used to estimate the age of a specimen in paleobiology, archaeology, forensic science, and other fields. This technique relates changes in amino acid molecules to the time elapsed since they were formed.
The list goes on. Palaeomagnetism: The polarity of the Earth changes at a knowable rate. This polarity is stored within rocks, through this the rock can be dated
Tephrochronology: Volcanic ash has its own signature for each eruption. In a sedimentary sequence the associated material within the ash layer can be dated giving a date for the eruption.
The thing is, in most archeological sites, especialy large ones, most or even all of these techniques can be used and if they all point to a general date, then we have total correlation that's practicaly impossible to argue against. And if they all come up with the same date as carbon dating produces, then that can only confirm the accuracy of carbon dating.
The limit of carbon dating hasn't been mentioned yet. Due to the decay rate of carbon-14, after about 60,000 years, carbon dating is no longer useful for measuring the age of something.
Another thing is that I think Brendan was talking about very recent organic matter being dated to several thousand years ago when he said that carbon dating has been wrong. He is correct about that, but not because carbon dating is flawed. The reason recently deceased organic matter shows up as several thousand years old is because the burning of fossil fuels has released large amounts of carbon-12 in the air. Basically, that screws up the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 and nitrogen-14, which gives false dates. It doesn't mean that carbon dating is flawed, only that it's not accurate on specimens that formed after the industrial revolution. Anytime after the industrial revolution and after 60kya, carbon dating works rather well, provided it is done right, and there is no contamination of the specimen.
Of course, there are numerous other techniques, some of which Slacker went over in the above post. , There are also a lot of other kinds of radiometric dating (using decay rates of radioactive isotopes), like samarium and neodymium, uranium and lead or thorium, and rubidium and strontium.
The limit of carbon dating hasn't been mentioned yet. Due to the decay rate of carbon-14, after about 60,000 years, carbon dating is no longer useful for measuring the age of something.
Another thing is that I think Brendan was talking about very recent organic matter being dated to several thousand years ago when he said that carbon dating has been wrong. He is correct about that, but not because carbon dating is flawed. The reason recently deceased organic matter shows up as several thousand years old is because the burning of fossil fuels has released large amounts of carbon-12 in the air. Basically, that screws up the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 and nitrogen-14, which gives false dates. It doesn't mean that carbon dating is flawed, only that it's not accurate on specimens that formed after the industrial revolution. Anytime after the industrial revolution and after 60kya, carbon dating works rather well, provided it is done right, and there is no contamination of the specimen.
Of course, there are numerous other techniques, some of which Slacker went over in the above post. , There are also a lot of other kinds of radiometric dating (using decay rates of radioactive isotopes), like samarium and neodymium, uranium and lead or thorium, and rubidium and strontium.
Luckily though, because we have a pretty well written and recorded history from well before the industrial revolution, dating techniques like carbon dating and their ilk are not often needed when attempting to date objects because we can often date younger object from what we call 'modern history' by simply looking at how they were made, and if objects are found in situe with dated coins, then that makes a rough date even easier to estimate.
So there you have it Brendan, dating techniques are pretty accurate because many of them are based on known constants, have been shown to work and are used to either confirm or correct dates arrived at by other dating methods. Thanks to this, we know for definate that the earth is much older than 6000 years old, that man evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago and that the oldest remains of man are found in Africa, with gradualy younger remains found the further away we get from Africa, which suggests an origin in Africa and a gradual migration away from Africa. Such studies as the Genographical project also corroborate the 'Out of Africa' theory. This is in complete disagreement with Genesis which says that man was created by God in Eden, which, according to the Bible, is in the area of modern day Iraq.
The youngest true dinosaur we have dated comes from around 65 million years ago, and all dinosaurs are found in lower layers than what is known as the KT boundary, which marks the end of the Meseozoic era and the beginning of the Cenozoic era, and which also seems to mark a huge extinction event. The KT boundary is a layer that contains an abnormaly high concentration of iridium, which it actualy found in abundance in meteors, so the favourite hypothesis is that a large asteroid collided with the earth around 65 million years ago, which must have made a huge explosion because the iridium rich layer is almost a world wide phenominom. And if the iridium made irt all the way around the world, then that means that so much dust was kicked up into the atmosphere as to temporarily block out the sun for a while, causing temperatures to drop, in turn causing vegetation to die, followed by the largest herbivors that eat them, followed by the carnivors that rely on the herbivors for food, and the whole eco-sytem collapses like a set of dominoes. Of course, not quite all dinosaurs died out completely, some of the very smallest ones, which were about the size of chickens, had evolved rudamentary feathers before the KT event, so they would have had an extra defence against the cold and being smaller, finding enough food to survive until temperatures rose again would be much easier. From these creatures, modern birds evolved. All of this is backed up by the fossil records which can be dated using the dating methods already described here. So the YEC version of events doesn't look at all likely I'm afraid.
Luckily though, because we have a pretty well written and recorded history from well before the industrial revolution, dating techniques like carbon dating and their ilk are not often needed when attempting to date objects because we can often date younger object from what we call 'modern history' by simply looking at how they were made, and if objects are found in situe with dated coins, then that makes a rough date even easier to estimate.
So there you have it Brendan, dating techniques are pretty accurate because many of them are based on known constants, have been shown to work and are used to either confirm or correct dates arrived at by other dating methods. Thanks to this, we know for definate that the earth is much older than 6000 years old, that man evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago and that the oldest remains of man are found in Africa, with gradualy younger remains found the further away we get from Africa, which suggests an origin in Africa and a gradual migration away from Africa. Such studies as the Genographical project also corroborate the 'Out of Africa' theory. This is in complete disagreement with Genesis which says that man was created by God in Eden, which, according to the Bible, is in the area of modern day Iraq.
The youngest true dinosaur we have dated comes from around 65 million years ago, and all dinosaurs are found in lower layers than what is known as the KT boundary, which marks the end of the Meseozoic era and the beginning of the Cenozoic era, and which also seems to mark a huge extinction event. The KT boundary is a layer that contains an abnormaly high concentration of iridium, which it actualy found in abundance in meteors, so the favourite hypothesis is that a large asteroid collided with the earth around 65 million years ago, which must have made a huge explosion because the iridium rich layer is almost a world wide phenominom. And if the iridium made irt all the way around the world, then that means that so much dust was kicked up into the atmosphere as to temporarily block out the sun for a while, causing temperatures to drop, in turn causing vegetation to die, followed by the largest herbivors that eat them, followed by the carnivors that rely on the herbivors for food, and the whole eco-sytem collapses like a set of dominoes. Of course, not quite all dinosaurs died out completely, some of the very smallest ones, which were about the size of chickens, had evolved rudamentary feathers before the KT event, so they would have had an extra defence against the cold and being smaller, finding enough food to survive until temperatures rose again would be much easier. From these creatures, modern birds evolved. All of this is backed up by the fossil records which can be dated using the dating methods already described here. So the YEC version of events doesn't look at all likely I'm afraid.
By the way Brendan, what would you say about dinosaurs? I'm honestly just curious and not meaning any offense, but I've never really heard what people who believe in Young Earth think about dinosaurs. If you don't know or don't want to answer that's fine.
By the way Brendan, what would you say about dinosaurs? I'm honestly just curious and not meaning any offense, but I've never really heard what people who believe in Young Earth think about dinosaurs. If you don't know or don't want to answer that's fine.
Kent Hovind, (who, ironicaly, was convicted of "fraud" in 2007 and was incarcerated as a "danger to the community") has a Young Earth Creationist theme park called 'Dinosaur Adventure Land' that depicts dinosaurs and people happily living side by side.
He's a slippery customer though, Mr Hovind has actualy offered a prize of $250,000 for anyone who can 'prove' evolution, although the terms of the deal are loaded in his direction because the terms say;
"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing. 2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.) 3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution). 4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves. 5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented."
So far, no one has claimed the prize.
So what's the problem? Well the problem is the way that it is worded, rather than simply asking for proof that evolution exists, he's actualy asking people to prove that evolution was responsible for life coming into existence in the first place, which science doesn't actualy state. Science states that 'abiogenesis' is responsible for the beginning of life and that evolution can only come into play once life already exists.
He's actualy asking us to prove something that's contrary to what science says. If he were to actualy ask for definitive evidence for evolution existing, then the $250,000 would have been claimed years ago when fruit flies speciating (becoming so geneticaly different from their ancestors that they could no longer successfuly mate with them, thus becoming a 'different' species) were observed in the lab.
I personaly countered the 'Kent Hovind $250,000 prize' on the 'Creatonism or Evolution?' thread about a year ago with an offer of £1 Million to anyone who can provide empirical evidence that evolution does not, and has never, occured.
So far, no one has stepped up to claim the money.
Kent Hovind, (who, ironicaly, was convicted of "fraud" in 2007 and was incarcerated as a "danger to the community") has a Young Earth Creationist theme park called 'Dinosaur Adventure Land' that depicts dinosaurs and people happily living side by side.
He's a slippery customer though, Mr Hovind has actualy offered a prize of $250,000 for anyone who can 'prove' evolution, although the terms of the deal are loaded in his direction because the terms say;
"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing. 2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.) 3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution). 4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves. 5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented."
So far, no one has claimed the prize.
So what's the problem? Well the problem is the way that it is worded, rather than simply asking for proof that evolution exists, he's actualy asking people to prove that evolution was responsible for life coming into existence in the first place, which science doesn't actualy state. Science states that 'abiogenesis' is responsible for the beginning of life and that evolution can only come into play once life already exists.
He's actualy asking us to prove something that's contrary to what science says. If he were to actualy ask for definitive evidence for evolution existing, then the $250,000 would have been claimed years ago when fruit flies speciating (becoming so geneticaly different from their ancestors that they could no longer successfuly mate with them, thus becoming a 'different' species) were observed in the lab.
I personaly countered the 'Kent Hovind $250,000 prize' on the 'Creatonism or Evolution?' thread about a year ago with an offer of £1 Million to anyone who can provide empirical evidence that evolution does not, and has never, occured.
Necrotise wrote on Aug 28th, 2009 at 10:25am : Out of curiosity, do you actually have the money should i wish to claim it?
Nope, THAT'S how certain I am that evolution exists and is provable.
It's a game though isn't it. Hovind makes a claim that evolution doesn't exist, if he can tie evolution in with something that can't possibly be proven (abiogenesis, because it's nothing to actualy do with evolution) but word it in such a way as to sound reasonable, he can offer a fantastic amount of money to the first person who can prove otherwise, which makes his claims 'look' reasonable to the average person who's never studied such things, safe in the knowledge that his money will never be claimed because not even the scientific community actualy thinks that evolution is responsible for the origins of life.
He's essentialy told a lie (infact several lies) to make his own point of view seem feasable.
He claims that the processes that brought 'time, space, and matter' into existence is considered by scientists to be a form of evolution, it isn't. He claims
that the processes that 'organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine
planets around the sun' is considered by scientists to be a form of evolution, it isn't. He claims that the processes that created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter is considered by scientists to be a form of evolution, it isn't.
Of all his claims about what the scientific community states, only the last two actualy come close to the actual truth.
That evolution 'caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves' and that evolution 'caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on theearth today'. So basicaly, he first tells a set of lies, then asks the scientific community to prove those lies. Of course, the scientific community takes one look at his $250,000 dollar offer and thinks 'What a crackpot!' and refuses to have anything to do with him and remains silent, which he then, by way of another lie, interprets that silence as evidence that he's right.
He's a con-man, it'd be like me first stating the lie that 'Christianity claims that a pantheon of gods are responsible for the creation of everything', then claiming that I disagree with this 'Christian' notion of a pantheon of gods, then asking Christians to actualy 'prove' that a pantheon of gods are responsible for the creation of everything in order to prove my disagreement to be wrong and offering Christians a huge amount of money as a prize if they manage it, then claiming victory when the money isn't claimed... when in actual fact, the real reason it isn't claimed is because no Christian in their right mind would even consider trying to prove that a pantheon of gods exists.
If I did such a thing, wouldn't you feel that I'm insulting your intelligence? That's exactly how the scientific community feels about Kent Hovind.
EDIT; Sorry guys, in yesterdays post, I forgot to print the first part
of Hovinds cash offer (points 1 to 5) so I've edited it in today.
Necrotise wrote on Aug 28th, 2009 at 10:25am : Out of curiosity, do you actually have the money should i wish to claim it?
Nope, THAT'S how certain I am that evolution exists and is provable.
It's a game though isn't it. Hovind makes a claim that evolution doesn't exist, if he can tie evolution in with something that can't possibly be proven (abiogenesis, because it's nothing to actualy do with evolution) but word it in such a way as to sound reasonable, he can offer a fantastic amount of money to the first person who can prove otherwise, which makes his claims 'look' reasonable to the average person who's never studied such things, safe in the knowledge that his money will never be claimed because not even the scientific community actualy thinks that evolution is responsible for the origins of life.
He's essentialy told a lie (infact several lies) to make his own point of view seem feasable.
He claims that the processes that brought 'time, space, and matter' into existence is considered by scientists to be a form of evolution, it isn't. He claims
that the processes that 'organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine
planets around the sun' is considered by scientists to be a form of evolution, it isn't. He claims that the processes that created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter is considered by scientists to be a form of evolution, it isn't.
Of all his claims about what the scientific community states, only the last two actualy come close to the actual truth.
That evolution 'caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves' and that evolution 'caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on theearth today'. So basicaly, he first tells a set of lies, then asks the scientific community to prove those lies. Of course, the scientific community takes one look at his $250,000 dollar offer and thinks 'What a crackpot!' and refuses to have anything to do with him and remains silent, which he then, by way of another lie, interprets that silence as evidence that he's right.
He's a con-man, it'd be like me first stating the lie that 'Christianity claims that a pantheon of gods are responsible for the creation of everything', then claiming that I disagree with this 'Christian' notion of a pantheon of gods, then asking Christians to actualy 'prove' that a pantheon of gods are responsible for the creation of everything in order to prove my disagreement to be wrong and offering Christians a huge amount of money as a prize if they manage it, then claiming victory when the money isn't claimed... when in actual fact, the real reason it isn't claimed is because no Christian in their right mind would even consider trying to prove that a pantheon of gods exists.
If I did such a thing, wouldn't you feel that I'm insulting your intelligence? That's exactly how the scientific community feels about Kent Hovind.
EDIT; Sorry guys, in yesterdays post, I forgot to print the first part
of Hovinds cash offer (points 1 to 5) so I've edited it in today.
Hovind is a bit nuts. I've seen some videos and I can tell he's somewhat making up some of his facts. I'm a christian and I believe in some form of creation, but not his.
Evolution deals with living things. To try and tie it to how the universe formed is wrong. It's a whole different science.
Hovind is a bit nuts. I've seen some videos and I can tell he's somewhat making up some of his facts. I'm a christian and I believe in some form of creation, but not his.
Evolution deals with living things. To try and tie it to how the universe formed is wrong. It's a whole different science.
CaMacKid wrote on Aug 29th, 2009 at 10:46am : Hovind is a bit nuts. I've seen some videos and I can tell he's somewhat making up some of his facts. I'm a christian and I believe in some form of creation, but not his.<br> <br> Evolution deals with living things. To try and tie it to how the universe formed is wrong. It's a whole different science.
Necrotise wrote on Aug 29th, 2009 at 11:06am : Does he know he is asking the scientific community to prove something they dont believe or is he just an idiot?
I suspect if he was just an idiot, someone would have told him about it by now, (I've personaly e-mailed his web site with this information, although I never recieved an answer. ) so he should know, yet the offer remains open and the wording remains unchanged, so the only thing one can conclude is that he has an ulterior motive. Probably money related, after all, he makes money from Dinosaur Adventure Land and the sale of DVDs that support his views on his website.
The $250,000 prize is obviously just a publicity stunt, done in such a way as to try to fool the gullible and those that are not knowledgable in scientific claims into believing him, while at the same time not actualy risking his own money.
[QUOTE u='CaMacKid' d='2009-08-29 10:46:05']Hovind is a bit nuts. I've seen some videos and I can tell he's somewhat making up some of his facts. I'm a christian and I believe in some form of creation, but not his.<br> <br> Evolution deals with living things. To try and tie it to how the universe formed is wrong. It's a whole different science.[/QUOTE]
:cheers: [QUOTE u='Necrotise' d='2009-08-29 11:06:15']Does he know he is asking the scientific community to prove something they dont believe or is he just an idiot?[/QUOTE] I suspect if he was just an idiot, someone would have told him about it by now, (I've personaly e-mailed his web site with this information, although I never recieved an answer. ) so he should know, yet the offer remains open and the wording remains unchanged, so the only thing one can conclude is that he has an ulterior motive. Probably money related, after all, he makes money from Dinosaur Adventure Land and the sale of DVDs that support his views on his website.
The $250,000 prize is obviously just a publicity stunt, done in such a way as to try to fool the gullible and those that are not knowledgable in scientific claims into believing him, while at the same time not actualy risking his own money.
Ok, new subject. I've come up with a hypothesis and I'd like your opinions.
During the Babylonian Captivity, when many of the Messianic prophecies were first written, the Hebrews told of a great king who would free them from their captivity. This would become known as part of the 'Messianic prophecies', and this did indeed seem to accurately come true. The Babylonians were conqured by the Persians under their king 'Cyrus the Great' who then released the Hebrews and was regarded as a Messiah by the Jews.
But when we actualy look at it, that was actualy pretty likely to happen anyway. The Babylonians were always fighting against some nation or other and it was only a matter of time before they would come up against someone tougher than themselves, and all the nations had a king in those days, so was the prophecy divine inspiration, or simply an educated guess?
Those that considered him as a Messiah certainly thought it was divine inspiration, but I'm not convinced.
The prophecies also say that the Messiah will basicaly rule the world.
Put yourself in Cyrus' shoes for a moment. He hears of the prophecies of a bunch of captives that tell of a great king who will free them and go on to rule the world and decides to make the first part come true in the hope that the second part will come true. I'm not saying he defeated the Babylonians just so that he could free the Hebrews, but that once he had defeated the Babylonians, he would have naturaly heard about the prophecies and freed them as an act of fulfillment, because it was a good 'political move', after all, he would now be regarded as the Messiah by an entire foreign nation.
So, educated guess, or shrewd political manipulation by the Hebrews?
Y'see, freeing the slaves of a defeated nation was not normal practice. Slaves were after all a commodity, part of the spoils of war, so it's possible that this prophecy was ingeniously written as a form of insurance by the Hebrews, they knew it was likely that the Babylonians would be defeated soon, but they needed to make sure that they would be freed as a result.
So, my hypothesis is that the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah will free the Jews and go on to rule the world, infact, even the whole 'concept' of a Messiah, may have been political in origin.
Whaddaya think?
Ok, new subject. I've come up with a hypothesis and I'd like your opinions.
During the Babylonian Captivity, when many of the Messianic prophecies were first written, the Hebrews told of a great king who would free them from their captivity. This would become known as part of the 'Messianic prophecies', and this did indeed seem to accurately come true. The Babylonians were conqured by the Persians under their king 'Cyrus the Great' who then released the Hebrews and was regarded as a Messiah by the Jews.
But when we actualy look at it, that was actualy pretty likely to happen anyway. The Babylonians were always fighting against some nation or other and it was only a matter of time before they would come up against someone tougher than themselves, and all the nations had a king in those days, so was the prophecy divine inspiration, or simply an educated guess?
Those that considered him as a Messiah certainly thought it was divine inspiration, but I'm not convinced.
The prophecies also say that the Messiah will basicaly rule the world.
Put yourself in Cyrus' shoes for a moment. He hears of the prophecies of a bunch of captives that tell of a great king who will free them and go on to rule the world and decides to make the first part come true in the hope that the second part will come true. I'm not saying he defeated the Babylonians just so that he could free the Hebrews, but that once he had defeated the Babylonians, he would have naturaly heard about the prophecies and freed them as an act of fulfillment, because it was a good 'political move', after all, he would now be regarded as the Messiah by an entire foreign nation.
So, educated guess, or shrewd political manipulation by the Hebrews?
Y'see, freeing the slaves of a defeated nation was not normal practice. Slaves were after all a commodity, part of the spoils of war, so it's possible that this prophecy was ingeniously written as a form of insurance by the Hebrews, they knew it was likely that the Babylonians would be defeated soon, but they needed to make sure that they would be freed as a result.
So, my hypothesis is that the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah will free the Jews and go on to rule the world, infact, even the whole 'concept' of a Messiah, may have been political in origin.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:18am : That realy isn't my intention if that's how you read it. I come more from the point of view that this is the general concesus of historians, so it'd be nice if that concensus was answered with workable, feasable, logical argument that contains as much evidence as the historic sources do.
Not once have I said, 'believe it and get on with it' but rather 'show me a good reason not to believe this version by supplying evidence that contradicts it from the Christian viewpoint.'
Sounds like you need to be interacting with those posts I made earlier then.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:18am : What's to tell? I havent 'retold' anything as far as I'm aware, but simply told it as the majority of historians understand it, so far all you've basicaly said is that I'm wrong but you haven't actualy offered up any evidence to counter my argument.
The "retelling" here is your "retelling of the Crusades." (quote from me earlier) Unquestionably, what you said about the Crusades is not what the majority of historians believe.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-26 08:18:47'] That realy isn't my intention if that's how you read it. I come more from the point of view that this is the general concesus of historians, so it'd be nice if that concensus was answered with workable, feasable, logical argument that contains as much evidence as the historic sources do.
Not once have I said, 'believe it and get on with it' but rather 'show me a good reason not to believe this version by supplying evidence that contradicts it from the Christian viewpoint.'[/quote] Sounds like you need to be interacting with those posts I made earlier then. ;)
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-26 08:18:47']What's to tell? I havent 'retold' anything as far as I'm aware, but simply told it as the majority of historians understand it, so far all you've basicaly said is that I'm wrong but you haven't actualy offered up any evidence to counter my argument.[/QUOTE] The "retelling" here is your "retelling of the Crusades." (quote from me earlier) Unquestionably, what you said about the Crusades is not what the majority of historians believe.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:48am : Again, I'll have to repeat this. That's why the term 'historical truth' has the addition 'as we know it.' It states that no version of history is ever truly settled but can change upon the discovery of new evidence that counters the old evidence.
History is infact a constantly changing thng.
My examples were the Holocaust and the fall of the Roman Empire -- both of these are historical truths, and in both cases there is a settled consensus among scholars; moreover, there exists consonance in their interpretations of both events. This whole time my primary purpose has been to point out that in the important cases you're not representing a settled scholarly consensus. Some of it is clearly right, but that stuff is fairly trivial (e.g., Isaiah 7:14 doesn't connote a virgin). Some of it was believed in the 19th century, but 20th century scholarship showed it to be speculation (e.g., Xianity is cobbled together out of mystery religions and such). And some of it is basically unknown (e.g., Luke had two authors).
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:48am : Now who's making claims of definate history? Are you claiming that history is unsettled if I'm quoting it but settled if you quote it?
I've never made the claim that scholarly consensus doesn't exist. I've also never made the claim that I'm on the side of scholarly consensus, so therefore you should believe me. I'm just pointing out that you are not representing scholarly consensus.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:48am :
I have already given evidence that counters both those claims, but so far your only countering argument is 'You're wrong!'
You made a first-round go of it, but I responded and you haven't rebutted me yet. With respect to the mystery religions, clearly you're not representing scholarly consensus because even a bastion of Enlightenment thought like the Encyclopedia Britannica notes,
"The hypothesis of a
mutual dependence has been proposed by scholars—especially a dependence
of Christianity upon the mysteries—but such theories have been
discarded." (Mystery Religions and Christianity article, available online)
And I've pointed out the fundamental reason that such theories have been discarded: These similar data points are embedded into wildly different contexts and narratives. It's a bit like saying that because Van Gogh and Picasso both used the color red, one must have been plagiarizing the other: Their use of the color red was very trivial compared to the broader context of their art. Similarly, the similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions have to be considerably stretched and their contexts ignored in order to claim dependence, either way.
Now for the Crusades: Your claim was that the Muslims were peaceful until those dastardly Christians decided to invade Muslim territory and introduce aggression into their world. I pointed out that Islam began violent conflict several centuries earlier by conquering Christian lands, and that the First Crusade was in fact a defensive war: Eastern Christians were under attack by the Turks and the West responded to their add, in addition to some nasty stuff happening to both Eastern and Western pilgrims visiting the so-called Holy Land. I'll more than admit that plenty of nasty stuff went on in the Crusades (which, again, is almost completely uncorrelated with the popular view of things), but it certainly cannot be said that when things got rolling the Muslims were peaceful humanist and the Christians were evil barbarians.
You then respond that, well, you've read accounts of atrocities committed by the Crusaders against the Muslims. I more than admit that. But that doesn't mean that the First Crusade was not a defensive war, or that Islam didn't spend the first few centuries of its existence conquering every bit of land it could.
You can check my claims among scholars, of course -- Riley-Smith, Madden, etc.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-26 08:48:17']Again, I'll have to repeat this. That's why the term 'historical truth' has the addition 'as we know it.' It states that no version of history is ever truly settled but can change upon the discovery of new evidence that counters the old evidence.
History is infact a constantly changing thng.[/quote] My examples were the Holocaust and the fall of the Roman Empire -- both of these are historical truths, and in both cases there is a settled consensus among scholars; moreover, there exists consonance in their interpretations of both events. This whole time my primary purpose has been to point out that in the important cases you're not representing a settled scholarly consensus. Some of it is clearly right, but that stuff is fairly trivial (e.g., Isaiah 7:14 doesn't connote a virgin). Some of it was believed in the 19th century, but 20th century scholarship showed it to be speculation (e.g., Xianity is cobbled together out of mystery religions and such). And some of it is basically unknown (e.g., Luke had two authors).
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-26 08:48:17']Now who's making claims of definate history? Are you claiming that history is unsettled if I'm quoting it but settled if you quote it?[/quote] I've never made the claim that scholarly consensus doesn't exist. I've also never made the claim that I'm on the side of scholarly consensus, so therefore you should believe me. I'm just pointing out that you are not representing scholarly consensus.
I have already given evidence that counters both those claims, but so far your only countering argument is 'You're wrong!'[/quote] You made a first-round go of it, but I responded and you haven't rebutted me yet. With respect to the mystery religions, clearly you're not representing scholarly consensus because even a bastion of Enlightenment thought like the Encyclopedia Britannica notes,
"The hypothesis of a
mutual dependence has been proposed by scholars—especially a dependence
of Christianity upon the mysteries—but such theories have been
discarded." (Mystery Religions and Christianity article, available online)
And I've pointed out the fundamental reason that such theories have been discarded: These similar data points are embedded into wildly different contexts and narratives. It's a bit like saying that because Van Gogh and Picasso both used the color red, one must have been plagiarizing the other: Their use of the color red was very trivial compared to the broader context of their art. Similarly, the similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions have to be considerably stretched and their contexts ignored in order to claim dependence, either way.
Now for the Crusades: Your claim was that the Muslims were peaceful until those dastardly Christians decided to invade Muslim territory and introduce aggression into their world. I pointed out that Islam began violent conflict several centuries earlier by conquering Christian lands, and that the First Crusade was in fact a defensive war: Eastern Christians were under attack by the Turks and the West responded to their add, in addition to some nasty stuff happening to both Eastern and Western pilgrims visiting the so-called Holy Land. I'll more than admit that plenty of nasty stuff went on in the Crusades (which, again, is almost completely uncorrelated with the popular view of things), but it certainly cannot be said that when things got rolling the Muslims were peaceful humanist and the Christians were evil barbarians.
You then respond that, well, you've read accounts of atrocities committed by the Crusaders against the Muslims. I more than admit that. But that doesn't mean that the First Crusade was not a defensive war, or that Islam didn't spend the first few centuries of its existence conquering every bit of land it could.
You can check my claims among scholars, of course -- Riley-Smith, Madden, etc.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:48am : Do you know what the most common Christian argument (from both Christian scholars and everyday Chistians alike) for the Quirinius question is?
It's that Quirinius must have acted as a governer under Herod's rule sometime around 6BC shortly before Herod's death in 4BC.
No, that's the most common evangelical argument. (Though I do remember that when I translated Luke I read 'pro' as "before" instead of "first" by accident, and have since wondered why nobody else reads it this way, and it seemed to me a legitimate translation, albeit an accidental one. Whatever the case, let's continue.)
Non-evangelicals aren't wedded to this idea of "biblical inerrancy," which interprets God's truthfulness through the lens of modern scientific positivism, and comes up with all kinds of odd expectations for the Bible. For that reason, non-evangelical Christian scholars like the aforementioned Raymond Brown and Pope John Paul II, among a host of others, are in principle fairly unconcerned about this census. Maybe Luke was wrong, maybe he will turn out to be right in the future -- it doesn't particularly matter to them.
So, you are here representing the scholarly consensus, but plenty of Christian scholars made their peace with it long ago, so what you're saying is fairly trivial.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-08-26 08:48:34']Do you know what the most common Christian argument (from both Christian scholars and everyday Chistians alike) for the Quirinius question is?
It's that Quirinius must have acted as a governer under Herod's rule sometime around 6BC shortly before Herod's death in 4BC.[/quote] No, that's the most common [i]evangelical[/i] argument. (Though I do remember that when I translated Luke I read 'pro' as "before" instead of "first" by accident, and have since wondered why nobody else reads it this way, and it seemed to me a legitimate translation, albeit an accidental one. Whatever the case, let's continue.)
Non-evangelicals aren't wedded to this idea of "biblical inerrancy," which interprets God's truthfulness through the lens of modern scientific positivism, and comes up with all kinds of odd expectations for the Bible. For that reason, non-evangelical Christian scholars like the aforementioned Raymond Brown and Pope John Paul II, among a host of others, are in principle fairly unconcerned about this census. Maybe Luke was wrong, maybe he will turn out to be right in the future -- it doesn't particularly matter to them.
So, you are here representing the scholarly consensus, but plenty of Christian scholars made their peace with it long ago, so what you're saying is fairly trivial.
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 12:41pm : I'm not saying I don't believe in any dating techniques, however I am just saying that carbon dating and strata dating are terrible forms of dating....period.
Hello friend,
I'll try to keep this brief. I have no doubt that you've been told these things in good faith, but they simply aren't true. Of course there are limitations to dating techniques, and scientists are plenty willing to argue over them and recognize them and so on. But the motivation for what you've been told is fear. Evangelicals are afraid that they are losing a "culture war," and see "evolution vs. creation" as one big battleground of that war. But if you look at the history of it that's not really true.
When evolutionary theory first came around, the most stalwart conservative school in the world, Old Princeton, was more than willing to talk about it and entertain the notion. It wasn't until the mythology of a "culture war" was developed that so-called "fundamentalist" Christians became opposed to evolutionary theory. But a culture war assumes that America or the West or the democratic ideal is what really matters in the world and Christians are fighting to maintain hold of it, and this is not what matters to us. Empires rise and fall in world history and it is of fleeting interest, but the object of God's reign is the whole world. The "culture war" therefore betrays that we are more fundamentally Americans or Westerners than we are Christians, and that is wrong.
I understand that what I'm writing is very compressed, but I do hope you take this from it: If God is after the whole world then we must affirm the whole world. And that means that we can be excited about the prospect of exploration, experimentation, and discovery. Culture warriors fear exploration, experimentation, and discovery, because they think they've already found the turf that's worth fighting for, but exploration and discovery imply that there may well be new and better turf out there that makes the culture war entirely irrelevant.
To be blunt, then: Young-earth creationism is fearful, reactionary, and misled. Go learn without fear, and with hope in the God who created the whole world and brings it to maturity in Christ by the Spirit.
Brendan.Clace wrote on Aug 26th, 2009 at 12:41pm : I'm not saying I don't believe in any dating techniques, however I am just saying that carbon dating and strata dating are terrible forms of dating....period.
Hello friend,
I'll try to keep this brief. I have no doubt that you've been told these things in good faith, but they simply aren't true. Of course there are limitations to dating techniques, and scientists are plenty willing to argue over them and recognize them and so on. But the motivation for what you've been told is fear. Evangelicals are afraid that they are losing a "culture war," and see "evolution vs. creation" as one big battleground of that war. But if you look at the history of it that's not really true.
When evolutionary theory first came around, the most stalwart conservative school in the world, Old Princeton, was more than willing to talk about it and entertain the notion. It wasn't until the mythology of a "culture war" was developed that so-called "fundamentalist" Christians became opposed to evolutionary theory. But a culture war assumes that America or the West or the democratic ideal is what really matters in the world and Christians are fighting to maintain hold of it, and this is not what matters to us. Empires rise and fall in world history and it is of fleeting interest, but the object of God's reign is the whole world. The "culture war" therefore betrays that we are more fundamentally Americans or Westerners than we are Christians, and that is wrong.
I understand that what I'm writing is very compressed, but I do hope you take this from it: If God is after the whole world then we must affirm the whole world. And that means that we can be excited about the prospect of exploration, experimentation, and discovery. Culture warriors fear exploration, experimentation, and discovery, because they think they've already found the turf that's worth fighting for, but exploration and discovery imply that there may well be new and better turf out there that makes the culture war entirely irrelevant.
To be blunt, then: Young-earth creationism is fearful, reactionary, and misled. Go learn without fear, and with hope in the God who created the whole world and brings it to maturity in Christ by the Spirit.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 8:03am : So, my hypothesis is that the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah will free the Jews and go on to rule the world, infact, even the whole 'concept' of a Messiah, may have been political in origin.
Whaddaya think?
I'm not quite sure how this conclusion is telling us something new. Hasn't Messiah always been thoroughly political? Or are you making the reductionist claim -- just political, fundamentally nothing else?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 8:03am : So, my hypothesis is that the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah will free the Jews and go on to rule the world, infact, even the whole 'concept' of a Messiah, may have been political in origin.
Whaddaya think?
I'm not quite sure how this conclusion is telling us something new. Hasn't Messiah always been thoroughly political? Or are you making the reductionist claim -- just political, fundamentally nothing else?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 9:49am :
Sorry, my wife had her wisdom teeth taken out and there were some complications. I've been taking care of her.
wow, crap, that blows. Is she doing better now? It's good to have you back. I like being able to read from both you and Slacker. It helps me to balance my understanding of things. Plus, your also the first Christian that i've encountered online that has had education in historical criticism and theology, so that is incredibly refreshing.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-09-05 09:49:51']
Sorry, my wife had her wisdom teeth taken out and there were some complications. I've been taking care of her. [/QUOTE]
wow, crap, that blows. Is she doing better now? It's good to have you back. I like being able to read from both you and Slacker. It helps me to balance my understanding of things. Plus, your also the first Christian that i've encountered online that has had education in historical criticism and theology, so that is incredibly refreshing.
^ dude...if we could like, crash the server with our epic posts, that would be 1337. i mean, i would seriously consider myself legit if i could be partly responsible for that
^ dude...if we could like, crash the server with our epic posts, that would be 1337. i mean, i would seriously consider myself legit if i could be partly responsible for that
bored_maniac33 wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 12:35pm :
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 9:49am :
Sorry, my wife had her wisdom teeth taken out and there were some complications. I've been taking care of her.
wow, crap, that blows. Is she doing better now? It's good to have you back. I like being able to read from both you and Slacker. It helps me to balance my understanding of things. Plus, your also the first Christian that i've encountered online that has had education in historical criticism and theology, so that is incredibly refreshing.
My first love was philosophy, but I also studied Christian Origins under L. Michael White, friend of Wayne Meeks and author of From Jesus to Xianity, and did some religious history. White was so far left that he often seemed like an impossible caricature, but thankfully he had a very strong hand to play when it came to archaeology.
Unfortunately, we Christians have not been very faithful in recent years when it comes to intellectual discourses. We've married the scientific positivism of the last age and have turned largely to wooden fundamentalisms because of it, whether we're talking about the Biola apologists or the Jesus Seminar. And I fear that Alvin Plantinga's success may simply have paved the way for insipid, bourgeois community church types to invade the Academy.
But still there has been some good work, even if it hasn't been quite as popular as ridiculous millennarian fiction and self-help mantras. For my money there is nothing better than Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Protopresbyter Alexander (Schmemann) had a fascinating vision for the power of the liturgy. Back at the root of our fundamentalization, John Williamson Nevin saw in the creeds good reason to avoid the Revivalism that has so destroyed evangelicalism. At his best, John Milbank has shown us just how prodigious Augustine's thought is, and some others have shown us the deep relevance of Aquinas and Luther and Calvin. Stanley Hauerwas constantly exposes our unknowing commitment to Enlightenment politics. And I couldn't possibly write this paragraph without mentioning Cornelius Van Til, the man who not only had the balls to correct Barth but had the vision to anticipate post-foundationalism with nothing but some dusty confessional documents. Which reminds me to include Barth!
If we're looking for biblical studies, I'd certainly have to mention Walter Brueggemann, Brevard Childs, Gerhard Von Rad, Raymond Brown, Paul Achtemeier, and too many others to list. There has even been some good stuff among certain conservatives, like Geerhardus Vos and NT Wright.
I don't nearly think that we are left without hope. We sold out to the modern era, and if instead we can dig back into real Christian orthodoxy we will definitely have the resources for a forward-looking imagination.
Sorry, my wife had her wisdom teeth taken out and there were some complications. I've been taking care of her. [/QUOTE]
wow, crap, that blows. Is she doing better now? It's good to have you back. I like being able to read from both you and Slacker. It helps me to balance my understanding of things. Plus, your also the first Christian that i've encountered online that has had education in historical criticism and theology, so that is incredibly refreshing. [/QUOTE] My first love was philosophy, but I also studied Christian Origins under L. Michael White, friend of Wayne Meeks and author of From Jesus to Xianity, and did some religious history. White was so far left that he often seemed like an impossible caricature, but thankfully he had a very strong hand to play when it came to archaeology.
Unfortunately, we Christians have not been very faithful in recent years when it comes to intellectual discourses. We've married the scientific positivism of the last age and have turned largely to wooden fundamentalisms because of it, whether we're talking about the Biola apologists or the Jesus Seminar. And I fear that Alvin Plantinga's success may simply have paved the way for insipid, bourgeois community church types to invade the Academy.
But still there has been some good work, even if it hasn't been quite as popular as ridiculous millennarian fiction and self-help mantras. For my money there is nothing better than Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Protopresbyter Alexander (Schmemann) had a fascinating vision for the power of the liturgy. Back at the root of our fundamentalization, John Williamson Nevin saw in the creeds good reason to avoid the Revivalism that has so destroyed evangelicalism. At his best, John Milbank has shown us just how prodigious Augustine's thought is, and some others have shown us the deep relevance of Aquinas and Luther and Calvin. Stanley Hauerwas constantly exposes our unknowing commitment to Enlightenment politics. And I couldn't possibly write this paragraph without mentioning Cornelius Van Til, the man who not only had the balls to correct Barth but had the vision to anticipate post-foundationalism with nothing but some dusty confessional documents. Which reminds me to include Barth!
If we're looking for biblical studies, I'd certainly have to mention Walter Brueggemann, Brevard Childs, Gerhard Von Rad, Raymond Brown, Paul Achtemeier, and too many others to list. There has even been some good stuff among certain conservatives, like Geerhardus Vos and NT Wright.
I don't nearly think that we are left without hope. We sold out to the modern era, and if instead we can dig back into real Christian orthodoxy we will definitely have the resources for a forward-looking imagination.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 9:34am : Now for the Crusades: Your claim was that the Muslims were peaceful until those dastardly Christians decided to invade Muslim territory and introduce aggression into their world. I pointed out that Islam began violent conflict several centuries earlier by conquering Christian lands, and that the First Crusade was in fact a defensive war: Eastern Christians were under attack by the Turks and the West responded to their add, in addition to some nasty stuff happening to both Eastern and Western pilgrims visiting the so-called Holy Land. I'll more than admit that plenty of nasty stuff went on in the Crusades (which, again, is almost completely uncorrelated with the popular view of things), but it certainly cannot be said that when things got rolling the Muslims were peaceful humanist and the Christians were evil barbarians.
You then respond that, well, you've read accounts of atrocities committed by the Crusaders against the Muslims. I more than admit that. But that doesn't mean that the First Crusade was not a defensive war, or that Islam didn't spend the first few centuries of its existence conquering every bit of land it could.
You can check my claims among scholars, of course -- Riley-Smith, Madden, etc.
Actualy, I stated that Islam became 'fundamental' after the crusades, not that the Muslims were 'totaly peaceful' before the crusades, but seriously, you're actualy saying that the Crusades were a defensive move? The Muslims invaded Syria just before 640, your so called 'defensive move' was carried out from 1095 onwards, 455 years later. You're talking as if the Muslims invaded just the week before. It'd be like Britain invading America now as retaliation for the War of Independence, infact, it's worse because that was only around 200 years ago.
Yes, the Muslims were very war-like, when they first started out over four hundred years earlier, but by the time the Crusades came around, they had become something quite different and had entered a period of renaissance know as the Islamic Golden Age, which was known as an era of peace that brought advances in the arts, agriculture, economics, industry, law, literature, navigation, philosophy, sciences, sociology, and technology, until the Crusades happened. If you consider the real start of the spread of Christian world being the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire under Constantine, and then being forcefully spread throughout the Empire, then you can see a similarity to the very early spread of Islam, through force, then when you look at how Christianity eventualy changed into something altogether more peaceful, that is basicaly the same as how the Muslims had changed before the Crusades happened.
I really cannot see how you can justify saying that the Christian invasion against a group of people who had become pretty peaceful over the past 455 years was a 'defensive move' against a Muslim invasion that had happened almost half a millenium before.
The real reason for the Crusades happening is actualy more to do with the East-West Schism of 1054, which had split Christianity into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Although the schism was mutual and they weren't exactly warring, the two sides still pretty much hated each other. The Crusades were originaly launched in response to the expansion of the Seljuq Empire into Anatolia, which was at the time was under the Eastern Orthodox Church, (which had happened more in the way of a cultural revolution than direct invasion) the Roman Catholic Church sent the Crusades to claim the area for Roman Catholicism as a form of victory over both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Muslims, not to 'help' the Eastern Orthodox Church defend against the Muslims. Infact during the Crusades, the Roman Catholics looted of the Church of Holy Wisdom
and various other Orthodox holy sites and converted these places from Orthodox Christian sites to Roman
Catholic ones. It was more a case of Anatolia being up for grabs, and the Roman Catholics wanted it, got it, then went on to invade a settled land. Along the way, they also conducted campaigns in non Muslim territories (usualy pagan areas) outside the Levant for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. The Crusades really were just the Catholic Church expanding it's own 'empire of faith' by force.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 9:34am : Now for the Crusades: Your claim was that the Muslims were peaceful until those dastardly Christians decided to invade Muslim territory and introduce aggression into their world. I pointed out that Islam began violent conflict several centuries earlier by conquering Christian lands, and that the First Crusade was in fact a defensive war: Eastern Christians were under attack by the Turks and the West responded to their add, in addition to some nasty stuff happening to both Eastern and Western pilgrims visiting the so-called Holy Land. I'll more than admit that plenty of nasty stuff went on in the Crusades (which, again, is almost completely uncorrelated with the popular view of things), but it certainly cannot be said that when things got rolling the Muslims were peaceful humanist and the Christians were evil barbarians.
You then respond that, well, you've read accounts of atrocities committed by the Crusaders against the Muslims. I more than admit that. But that doesn't mean that the First Crusade was not a defensive war, or that Islam didn't spend the first few centuries of its existence conquering every bit of land it could.
You can check my claims among scholars, of course -- Riley-Smith, Madden, etc.
Actualy, I stated that Islam became 'fundamental' after the crusades, not that the Muslims were 'totaly peaceful' before the crusades, but seriously, you're actualy saying that the Crusades were a defensive move? The Muslims invaded Syria just before 640, your so called 'defensive move' was carried out from 1095 onwards, 455 years later. You're talking as if the Muslims invaded just the week before. It'd be like Britain invading America now as retaliation for the War of Independence, infact, it's worse because that was only around 200 years ago.
Yes, the Muslims were very war-like, when they first started out over four hundred years earlier, but by the time the Crusades came around, they had become something quite different and had entered a period of renaissance know as the Islamic Golden Age, which was known as an era of peace that brought advances in the arts, agriculture, economics, industry, law, literature, navigation, philosophy, sciences, sociology, and technology, until the Crusades happened. If you consider the real start of the spread of Christian world being the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire under Constantine, and then being forcefully spread throughout the Empire, then you can see a similarity to the very early spread of Islam, through force, then when you look at how Christianity eventualy changed into something altogether more peaceful, that is basicaly the same as how the Muslims had changed before the Crusades happened.
I really cannot see how you can justify saying that the Christian invasion against a group of people who had become pretty peaceful over the past 455 years was a 'defensive move' against a Muslim invasion that had happened almost half a millenium before.
The real reason for the Crusades happening is actualy more to do with the East-West Schism of 1054, which had split Christianity into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Although the schism was mutual and they weren't exactly warring, the two sides still pretty much hated each other. The Crusades were originaly launched in response to the expansion of the Seljuq Empire into Anatolia, which was at the time was under the Eastern Orthodox Church, (which had happened more in the way of a cultural revolution than direct invasion) the Roman Catholic Church sent the Crusades to claim the area for Roman Catholicism as a form of victory over both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Muslims, not to 'help' the Eastern Orthodox Church defend against the Muslims. Infact during the Crusades, the Roman Catholics looted of the Church of Holy Wisdom
and various other Orthodox holy sites and converted these places from Orthodox Christian sites to Roman
Catholic ones. It was more a case of Anatolia being up for grabs, and the Roman Catholics wanted it, got it, then went on to invade a settled land. Along the way, they also conducted campaigns in non Muslim territories (usualy pagan areas) outside the Levant for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. The Crusades really were just the Catholic Church expanding it's own 'empire of faith' by force.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 8:03am : So, my hypothesis is that the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah will free the Jews and go on to rule the world, infact, even the whole 'concept' of a Messiah, may have been political in origin.
Whaddaya think?
I'm not quite sure how this conclusion is telling us something new. Hasn't Messiah always been thoroughly political? Or are you making the reductionist claim -- just political, fundamentally nothing else?
That's my thinking.
Something that started off as a 'clever political trick' to ensure the freedom of slaves after the Persion conquest of the Babylonians that somehow became a part of Jewish religion that eventualy led to Christianity.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 10:17am :
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 5th, 2009 at 8:03am : So, my hypothesis is that the Messianic prophecies that the Messiah will free the Jews and go on to rule the world, infact, even the whole 'concept' of a Messiah, may have been political in origin.
Whaddaya think?
I'm not quite sure how this conclusion is telling us something new. Hasn't Messiah always been thoroughly political? Or are you making the reductionist claim -- just political, fundamentally nothing else?
That's my thinking.
Something that started off as a 'clever political trick' to ensure the freedom of slaves after the Persion conquest of the Babylonians that somehow became a part of Jewish religion that eventualy led to Christianity.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 2:02pm : Actualy, I stated that Islam became 'fundamental' after the crusades, not that the Muslims were 'totaly peaceful' before the crusades,
The difference between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened religion" is impertinently slim, but whatever the specific terms, we're still talking about a flip from peace to violence.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 2:02pm : but seriously, you're actualy saying that the Crusades were a defensive move? The Muslims invaded Syria just before 640, the 'defensive move' was carried out from 1095 onwards, 455 years later. You're talking as if the Muslims invaded just the week before. It'd be like Britain invading America now as retaliation for the War of Independence, infact, it's worse because that was only around 200 years ago.
The Seljuks conquered Anatolia in the 11th century. The Battle of Manzikert happens in the 70s, the East's emperor Alexius asks for help, Gregory tries to rally some help for him but fails, then in the 90s Urban succeeds in organizing the First Crusade. It wasn't 455 years.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 2:02pm : Yes, the Muslims were war-like, over four hundred years earlier, but by the time the Crusades came around, they had become something quite different and had entered a period of renaissance know as the Islamic Golden Age, which was known as an era of peace that brought advances in the arts, agriculture, economics, industry, law, literature, navigation, philosophy, sciences, sociology, and technology, until the Crusades happened.
I assume you mean, until the Mongol invasion?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 2:02pm : If you consider the real start of the spread of Christian world being the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire under Constantine, and then being forcefully spread throughout the Empire, then you can see a similarity to the very early spread of Islam, through force, then when you look at how Christianity eventualy changed into something altogether more peaceful, that is basicaly the same as how the Muslims had changed before the Crusades happened.
It was hardly "forcefully spread." Were Constantine bending the people against their will, they would have welcomed Julian's attempted revival of paganism shortly after Constantine's death -- but this isn't what happened. In fact, Christianity was expanding through the Roman Empire and beyond simply by evangelical conversion; accordingly, it helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 2:02pm : The real reason for the Crusades happening is actualy more to do with the East-West Schism of 1054, which had split Christianity into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Although the schism was mutual and they weren't exactly warring, the two sides still pretty much hated each other.
The Crusades were originaly launched in response to the expansion of the Seljuq Empire into Anatolia, which was at the time was under the Eastern Orthodox Church, (which had happened more in the way of a cultural revolution than direct invasion) the Roman Catholic Church sent the Crusades to claim the area for Roman Catholicism as a form of victory over both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Muslims,
Then you're saying that the Muslims were invading the Christians, and that allowed one group of Christians to gain power over other Christians. Even if that's true, it agrees with my broader thesis and therefore is irrelevant, because Muslim aggression was still the occasion for the First Crusade.
To mention your theory, though, what picture emerges from the actual documents of the time? How does Urban understand the Crusade? What about the Crusaders? From their writings one certainly doesn't get the picture of a ruthless power-grab aimed at plundering the Eastern Christians, and I can't imagine why they would be afraid to indicate that they were fighting for the reclamation of a schismatic church! Sure they looted some Eastern buildings, but the Crusaders also killed and looted from Westerners -- there were some violent, bloodthirsty people involved in the Crusades, so of course every party involved would end up getting hurt.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 14:02:32']Actualy, I stated that Islam became 'fundamental' after the crusades, not that the Muslims were 'totaly peaceful' before the crusades,[/quote] The difference between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened religion" is impertinently slim, but whatever the specific terms, we're still talking about a flip from peace to violence.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 14:02:32']but seriously, you're actualy saying that the Crusades were a defensive move? The Muslims invaded Syria just before 640, the 'defensive move' was carried out from 1095 onwards, 455 years later. You're talking as if the Muslims invaded just the week before. It'd be like Britain invading America now as retaliation for the War of Independence, infact, it's worse because that was only around 200 years ago.[/quote] The Seljuks conquered Anatolia in the 11th century. The Battle of Manzikert happens in the 70s, the East's emperor Alexius asks for help, Gregory tries to rally some help for him but fails, then in the 90s Urban succeeds in organizing the First Crusade. It wasn't 455 years.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 14:02:32'] Yes, the Muslims were war-like, over four hundred years earlier, but by the time the Crusades came around, they had become something quite different and had entered a period of renaissance know as the Islamic Golden Age, which was known as an era of peace that brought advances in the arts, agriculture, economics, industry, law, literature, navigation, philosophy, sciences, sociology, and technology, until the Crusades happened.[/quote] I assume you mean, until the Mongol invasion?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 14:02:32']If you consider the real start of the spread of Christian world being the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire under Constantine, and then being forcefully spread throughout the Empire, then you can see a similarity to the very early spread of Islam, through force, then when you look at how Christianity eventualy changed into something altogether more peaceful, that is basicaly the same as how the Muslims had changed before the Crusades happened.[/quote] It was hardly "forcefully spread." Were Constantine bending the people against their will, they would have welcomed Julian's attempted revival of paganism shortly after Constantine's death -- but this isn't what happened. In fact, Christianity was expanding through the Roman Empire and beyond simply by evangelical conversion; accordingly, it helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 14:02:32']The real reason for the Crusades happening is actualy more to do with the East-West Schism of 1054, which had split Christianity into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Although the schism was mutual and they weren't exactly warring, the two sides still pretty much hated each other.
The Crusades were originaly launched in response to the expansion of the Seljuq Empire into Anatolia, which was at the time was under the Eastern Orthodox Church, (which had happened more in the way of a cultural revolution than direct invasion) the Roman Catholic Church sent the Crusades to claim the area for Roman Catholicism as a form of victory over both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Muslims,[/quote] Then you're saying that the Muslims were invading the Christians, and that allowed one group of Christians to gain power over other Christians. Even if that's true, it agrees with my broader thesis and therefore is irrelevant, because Muslim aggression was still the occasion for the First Crusade.
To mention your theory, though, what picture emerges from the actual documents of the time? How does Urban understand the Crusade? What about the Crusaders? From their writings one certainly doesn't get the picture of a ruthless power-grab aimed at plundering the Eastern Christians, and I can't imagine why they would be afraid to indicate that they were fighting for the reclamation of a schismatic church! Sure they looted some Eastern buildings, but the Crusaders also killed and looted from Westerners -- there were some violent, bloodthirsty people involved in the Crusades, so of course every party involved would end up getting hurt.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : The difference between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened religion" is impertinently slim, but whatever the specific terms, we're still talking about a flip from peace to violence.
Yes, but in this case, the Roman Catholics were the aggressors.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : The Seljuks conquered Anatolia in the 11th century. The Battle of Manzikert happens in the 70s, the East's emperor Alexius asks for help, Gregory tries to rally some help for him but fails, then in the 90s Urban succeeds in organizing the First Crusade. It wasn't 455 years.
Not since Anatolia, but Jerusalem itself had been Mulsim since 638, Anatolia was simply an excuse to invade Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : I assume you mean, until the Mongol invasion?
Which only happened because the Crusades resulted in the instability of the Islamic world. It weakened them and left them vulnerable to the Mongals.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : It was hardly "forcefully spread." Were Constantine bending the people against their will, they would have welcomed Julian's attempted revival of paganism shortly after Constantine's death -- but this isn't what happened. In fact, Christianity was expanding through the Roman Empire and beyond simply by evangelical conversion; accordingly, it helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples.
Yeah, they were being told, 'Be a Christian or your soul will burn in Hell.'
On February 27, 380, Theodosius I issued the edict 'De Fide Catolica' establishing "Catholic Christianity" as the exclusive official state religion, he also outlawed other faiths, and closed pagan temples. The De Fide Catolica read;
"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorise the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of 'our authority' which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict."
So, pretty clear then, Christianity was forced upon the populace of the
Roman Empire by Theodosius I. They were no longer allowed religious
freedom and anyone not becoming a 'Catholic Christian' would be judged
as ' 'foolish madmen' and be punished under the authority of Rome. Fair
enough, it didn't happen under Constantine, but then, I never said it
did.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : The difference between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened religion" is impertinently slim, but whatever the specific terms, we're still talking about a flip from peace to violence.
Yes, but in this case, the Roman Catholics were the aggressors.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : The Seljuks conquered Anatolia in the 11th century. The Battle of Manzikert happens in the 70s, the East's emperor Alexius asks for help, Gregory tries to rally some help for him but fails, then in the 90s Urban succeeds in organizing the First Crusade. It wasn't 455 years.
Not since Anatolia, but Jerusalem itself had been Mulsim since 638, Anatolia was simply an excuse to invade Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : I assume you mean, until the Mongol invasion?
Which only happened because the Crusades resulted in the instability of the Islamic world. It weakened them and left them vulnerable to the Mongals.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : It was hardly "forcefully spread." Were Constantine bending the people against their will, they would have welcomed Julian's attempted revival of paganism shortly after Constantine's death -- but this isn't what happened. In fact, Christianity was expanding through the Roman Empire and beyond simply by evangelical conversion; accordingly, it helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples.
Yeah, they were being told, 'Be a Christian or your soul will burn in Hell.'
On February 27, 380, Theodosius I issued the edict 'De Fide Catolica' establishing "Catholic Christianity" as the exclusive official state religion, he also outlawed other faiths, and closed pagan temples. The De Fide Catolica read;
"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorise the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of 'our authority' which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict."
So, pretty clear then, Christianity was forced upon the populace of the
Roman Empire by Theodosius I. They were no longer allowed religious
freedom and anyone not becoming a 'Catholic Christian' would be judged
as ' 'foolish madmen' and be punished under the authority of Rome. Fair
enough, it didn't happen under Constantine, but then, I never said it
did.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : Then you're saying that the Muslims were invading the Christians, and that allowed one group of Christians to gain power over other Christians. Even if that's true, it agrees with my broader thesis and therefore is irrelevant, because Muslim aggression was still the occasion for the First Crusade.
To mention your theory, though, what picture emerges from the actual documents of the time? How does Urban understand the Crusade? What about the Crusaders? From their writings one certainly doesn't get the picture of a ruthless power-grab aimed at plundering the Eastern Christians, and I can't imagine why they would be afraid to indicate that they were fighting for the reclamation of a schismatic church! Sure they looted some Eastern buildings, but the Crusaders also killed and looted from Westerners -- there were some violent, bloodthirsty people involved in the Crusades, so of course every party involved would end up getting hurt.
The Muslims were not the aggressors in Anatolia. After the division of the Roman Empire, all of western and central Anatolia remained under the control of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Byzantine control was challenged by Arab invasions in the seventh century, but 200 years later in the 9th and 10th centuries, a resurgent Byzantine Empire regained its lost territories and even expanded beyond its traditional borders, into Armenia. It's literaly as if Britain were to re-take it's colonies in America today, and then go on to expand on those territories into Canada. After 200 years of a settled civilisation, you can only class that as an act of aggression and any reaction as an act of reprisal.
So it's the same story again. The Muslims had been settled for over 200 years, then the Byzantine Empire started taking their territories which resulted in a backlash which in turn resulted in the taking of Anatolia.
The Byzantines started a fight they couldn't win so they called the Roman Catholics in for help who in turn 'appeared' to come to the rescue but then took areas of the Byzantine Empire and made them Catholic while at the same time expanding into Jerusalem, which had been Islamic for over 400 years, and other unrelated territories, they killed pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, basicaly anyone who
wasn't a Roman Catholic that the crusaders met along the way.
These people had not taken over the holy land, they were simply attacked and often slaughtered for not being Roman
Catholics.
I don't know what version you're reading, but the Crusades are generaly regarded as the most barbaric era of Christianity. There are certainly a lot more than just a few reports of looting too, the sacking of Constantinople and the establishment of the Latin Empire is a well known historical event.
Pope John Paul II even made a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople. Christians do recognise the genocide that was carried out by their own religion during the Crusades, and in the 1990s organised the 'Reconciliation Walk'.
The Reconciliation Walk is an interdenominational grassroots movement
of Western Christians, retracing the route of the First Crusade,
apologizing to Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians for the atrocities
of the Crusades foremost among them, the misuse of the name and message of Jesus. So if all these Christians and even a pope can admit the Catholic Church's guilt during the Crusades, what's the point of you arguing against it?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 4:36pm : Then you're saying that the Muslims were invading the Christians, and that allowed one group of Christians to gain power over other Christians. Even if that's true, it agrees with my broader thesis and therefore is irrelevant, because Muslim aggression was still the occasion for the First Crusade.
To mention your theory, though, what picture emerges from the actual documents of the time? How does Urban understand the Crusade? What about the Crusaders? From their writings one certainly doesn't get the picture of a ruthless power-grab aimed at plundering the Eastern Christians, and I can't imagine why they would be afraid to indicate that they were fighting for the reclamation of a schismatic church! Sure they looted some Eastern buildings, but the Crusaders also killed and looted from Westerners -- there were some violent, bloodthirsty people involved in the Crusades, so of course every party involved would end up getting hurt.
The Muslims were not the aggressors in Anatolia. After the division of the Roman Empire, all of western and central Anatolia remained under the control of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Byzantine control was challenged by Arab invasions in the seventh century, but 200 years later in the 9th and 10th centuries, a resurgent Byzantine Empire regained its lost territories and even expanded beyond its traditional borders, into Armenia. It's literaly as if Britain were to re-take it's colonies in America today, and then go on to expand on those territories into Canada. After 200 years of a settled civilisation, you can only class that as an act of aggression and any reaction as an act of reprisal.
So it's the same story again. The Muslims had been settled for over 200 years, then the Byzantine Empire started taking their territories which resulted in a backlash which in turn resulted in the taking of Anatolia.
The Byzantines started a fight they couldn't win so they called the Roman Catholics in for help who in turn 'appeared' to come to the rescue but then took areas of the Byzantine Empire and made them Catholic while at the same time expanding into Jerusalem, which had been Islamic for over 400 years, and other unrelated territories, they killed pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, basicaly anyone who
wasn't a Roman Catholic that the crusaders met along the way.
These people had not taken over the holy land, they were simply attacked and often slaughtered for not being Roman
Catholics.
I don't know what version you're reading, but the Crusades are generaly regarded as the most barbaric era of Christianity. There are certainly a lot more than just a few reports of looting too, the sacking of Constantinople and the establishment of the Latin Empire is a well known historical event.
Pope John Paul II even made a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople. Christians do recognise the genocide that was carried out by their own religion during the Crusades, and in the 1990s organised the 'Reconciliation Walk'.
The Reconciliation Walk is an interdenominational grassroots movement
of Western Christians, retracing the route of the First Crusade,
apologizing to Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians for the atrocities
of the Crusades foremost among them, the misuse of the name and message of Jesus. So if all these Christians and even a pope can admit the Catholic Church's guilt during the Crusades, what's the point of you arguing against it?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 5:19pm : Yes, but in this case, the Roman Catholics were the aggressors.
So you agree that the distinction between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened" is impertinent -- that's all I was after.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 5:19pm : Not since Anatolia, but Jerusalem itself had been Mulsim since 638, Anatolia was simply an excuse to invade Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
That's fine, but it doesn't help your case, because the invasion of Jerusalem is still occasioned by the the Seljuk conquest of Turkey. No doubt, once the ball got rolling everybody became aggressive as shit. But that doesn't mean that we're looking at a simplistic Xns = barbaric aggressors, Muslims = peace-loving enlightened culture.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 5:19pm : Which only happened because the Crusades resulted in the instability of the Islamic world. It weakened them and left them vulnerable to the Mongals.
Meaning that it was a half-truth. Oversimplification is required to tell the simple story of the barbaric Christians warmongering against the peace-loving enlightened Muslims, but when we get the whole truth the issue turns out to be really complex. The Crusades were a factor in the Muslims' fall, but the Mongols were the decisive cause. The Europeans were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff, but the Turks were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff too. When you tell the whole story, it's not simple either way. It's not vile Europeans against righteous Arabs, nor is it vile Arabs against righteous Europeans. It's just a cluster-fuck.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 5:19pm : Yeah, they were being told, 'Be a Christian or your soul will burn in Hell.'
Which was nothing new in the ancient world, so what's your point?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 5:19pm : On February 27, 380, Theodosius I issued the edict 'De Fide Catolica' establishing "Catholic Christianity" as the exclusive official state religion, he also outlawed other faiths, and closed pagan temples.
Sure, Theodosius was a bastard. For that matter, Julian was an amazing man. But this is irrelevant: Julian preceded Theodosius, so paganism was already dead and Christianity ubiquitous before Theodosius did anything. This edict was really aimed against Arian sects who were in schism against Nicene orthodoxy -- Christians, not pagans -- which is why it mentions the Pope and Bishop of Alexandria.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 17:19:15']Yes, but in this case, the Roman Catholics were the aggressors.[/quote] So you agree that the distinction between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened" is impertinent -- that's all I was after.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 17:19:15']Not since Anatolia, but Jerusalem itself had been Mulsim since 638, Anatolia was simply an excuse to invade Jerusalem and the Holy Land.[/quote] That's fine, but it doesn't help your case, because the invasion of Jerusalem is still occasioned by the the Seljuk conquest of Turkey. No doubt, once the ball got rolling everybody became aggressive as shit. But that doesn't mean that we're looking at a simplistic Xns = barbaric aggressors, Muslims = peace-loving enlightened culture.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 17:19:15']Which only happened because the Crusades resulted in the instability of the Islamic world. It weakened them and left them vulnerable to the Mongals.[/quote] Meaning that it was a half-truth. Oversimplification is required to tell the simple story of the barbaric Christians warmongering against the peace-loving enlightened Muslims, but when we get the whole truth the issue turns out to be really complex. The Crusades were a factor in the Muslims' fall, but the Mongols were the decisive cause. The Europeans were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff, but the Turks were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff too. When you tell the whole story, it's not simple either way. It's not vile Europeans against righteous Arabs, nor is it vile Arabs against righteous Europeans. It's just a cluster-fuck.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 17:19:15']Yeah, they were being told, 'Be a Christian or your soul will burn in Hell.' [/quote] Which was nothing new in the ancient world, so what's your point?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 17:19:15']On February 27, 380, Theodosius I issued the edict 'De Fide Catolica' establishing "Catholic Christianity" as the exclusive official state religion, he also outlawed other faiths, and closed pagan temples.[/quote] Sure, Theodosius was a bastard. For that matter, Julian was an amazing man. But this is irrelevant: Julian preceded Theodosius, so paganism was already dead and Christianity ubiquitous before Theodosius did anything. This edict was really aimed against Arian sects who were in schism against Nicene orthodoxy -- Christians, not pagans -- which is why it mentions the Pope and Bishop of Alexandria.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 5:24pm : The Muslims were not the aggressors in Anatolia. After the division of the Roman Empire, all of western and central Anatolia remained under the control of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Byzantine control was challenged by Arab invasions in the seventh century, but 200 years later in the 9th and 10th centuries, a resurgent Byzantine Empire regained its lost territories and even expanded beyond its traditional borders, into Armenia. It's literaly as if Britain were to re-take it's colonies in America today, and then go on to expand on those territories into Canada.
After 200 years of a settled civilisation, you can only class that as
an act of aggression and any reaction as an act of reprisal.
The Byzantines repel the Umayyad assault in the mid-8th. In the early 9th the Muslims press the attack against Crete and Sicily. There is back-and-forth, and the Byzantines are able to regain control in the late-9th. 150 years later, in the 11th, the Seljuks arrive on the scene and decide to conquer Anatolia. They're in striking distance of Constantinople when the West responds to Alexius's request for aid.
So, the Muslims begin the conquest and conflict continues off-and-on until the Crusades. If you say that the century between when the Byzantines fend off the Muslims and the Byzantine reconquest of Anatolia makes Anatolia uncontestably Muslim, then you must conclude that the century between the Byzantine reclamation and the Seljuk assault makes Anatolia uncontestably Byzantine before the Crusades. (I don't think either is true, but I'm saying you have to extend your judgment to both sides in this case.)
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 6th, 2009 at 5:24pm : So if all these Christians and even a pope can admit the Catholic Church's guilt during the Crusades, what's the point of you arguing against it?
I've never said otherwise? Once the floodgates were opened, the shit hit the fan, end of story. I've said that from the beginning. I'm just saying that your simple story of evil Christians picking on peaceful Muslims is a convenient half-truth.
Well, that's not all I've said. I have also said that there were plenty of people with, relatively-speaking, good intentions -- piety gone awry and all that -- and that the Crusades were not simply a ruthless power play by the Pope. You can list all the atrocities in the world and still not have proven that Urban was some Machiavellian mastermind -- again, his actual writings indicate quite the opposite. Similarly, the extant writings of the Crusaders indicate that well-intentioned (but somewhat misled) people get the ball rolling and then all sorts of violent bastards were able to tag along.
Obviously that doesn't exculpate anybody and make the papal apology foolish. Obviously that doesn't deny that many, many terrible things were done. It just means that it's not the simple story you're telling -- the well-worn rag about violent religious people who just can't stop picking on the peaceful, enlightened humanists.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 17:24:30']The Muslims were not the aggressors in Anatolia. After the division of the Roman Empire, all of western and central Anatolia remained under the control of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Byzantine control was challenged by Arab invasions in the seventh century, but 200 years later in the 9th and 10th centuries, a resurgent Byzantine Empire regained its lost territories and even expanded beyond its traditional borders, into Armenia. It's literaly as if Britain were to re-take it's colonies in America today, and then go on to expand on those territories into Canada.
After 200 years of a settled civilisation, you can only class that as
an act of aggression and any reaction as an act of reprisal.[/quote] The Byzantines repel the Umayyad assault in the mid-8th. In the early 9th the Muslims press the attack against Crete and Sicily. There is back-and-forth, and the Byzantines are able to regain control in the late-9th. 150 years later, in the 11th, the Seljuks arrive on the scene and decide to conquer Anatolia. They're in striking distance of Constantinople when the West responds to Alexius's request for aid.
So, the Muslims begin the conquest and conflict continues off-and-on until the Crusades. If you say that the century between when the Byzantines fend off the Muslims and the Byzantine reconquest of Anatolia makes Anatolia uncontestably Muslim, then you must conclude that the century between the Byzantine reclamation and the Seljuk assault makes Anatolia uncontestably Byzantine before the Crusades. (I don't think either is true, but I'm saying you have to extend your judgment to both sides in this case.)
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-06 17:24:30']So if all these Christians and even a pope can admit the Catholic Church's guilt during the Crusades, what's the point of you arguing against it?[/quote] I've never said otherwise? Once the floodgates were opened, the shit hit the fan, end of story. I've said that from the beginning. I'm just saying that your simple story of evil Christians picking on peaceful Muslims is a convenient half-truth.
Well, that's not all I've said. I have also said that there were plenty of people with, relatively-speaking, good intentions -- piety gone awry and all that -- and that the Crusades were not simply a ruthless power play by the Pope. You can list all the atrocities in the world and still not have proven that Urban was some Machiavellian mastermind -- again, his actual writings indicate quite the opposite. Similarly, the extant writings of the Crusaders indicate that well-intentioned (but somewhat misled) people get the ball rolling and then all sorts of violent bastards were able to tag along.
Obviously that doesn't exculpate anybody and make the papal apology foolish. Obviously that doesn't deny that many, many terrible things were done. It just means that it's not the simple story you're telling -- the well-worn rag about violent religious people who just can't stop picking on the peaceful, enlightened humanists.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : So you agree that the distinction between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened" is impertinent -- that's all I was after.
My point was that Islam became the religion we know today as a result of the Crusades. Before the Crusades, during the Islamic Golden Age, Islam was a much more relaxed religion, then, due to the Crusades, it faced rapid changes from the 12th century onwards. There was an increasing lack of tolerance of intellectual debate and freedom of thought that led to the Islam we know today.
This whole debate started with my comments about the effects the Crusades had on religion, but you're mixing politics in with religion. Politicaly, the Seljuqs were expanding an empire, so yes, they were politicaly war-like, as was almost every other large group of people at the time, it was an era of unrest with empire building and invasions and wars all over the place but the Islamic religion at the time was quite the opposite. They didn't enforce their religion upon the areas they expanded into, and as far as conquerers go, they were pretty decent folks. Those under their rule pretty much got to carry on as they had already been living, just with new rulers in place, life under them was pretty peaceful, creative and dynamic, as almost any reading you do on the Islamic Golden Age will attest.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : That's fine, but it doesn't help your case, because the invasion of Jerusalem is still occasioned by the the Seljuk conquest of Turkey. No doubt, once the ball got rolling everybody became aggressive as shit. But that doesn't mean that we're looking at a simplistic Xns = barbaric aggressors, Muslims = peace-loving enlightened culture.
What case? That the Crusades changed Islam for the worse? It did. Or that the Crusaders were the aggressors? As far as marching into Jerusalem is concerened, they were, as for the re-taking of Anatolia, possibly they were originaly acting on a call for help from the Byzantines, but they still ended up taking huge areas for themselves, aggressively, before going on to Jerusalem, which had definately been Islamic for hundreds of years. They started as the saviours of Anatolia, then became as bad, possibly worse, than the very people they were apparently defending Anatolia against. The whole Anatolia thing was used as a political exuse for Catholic expansion into Jerusalem.
.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : So you agree that the distinction between "totally peaceful" and "peace loving enlightened" is impertinent -- that's all I was after.
My point was that Islam became the religion we know today as a result of the Crusades. Before the Crusades, during the Islamic Golden Age, Islam was a much more relaxed religion, then, due to the Crusades, it faced rapid changes from the 12th century onwards. There was an increasing lack of tolerance of intellectual debate and freedom of thought that led to the Islam we know today.
This whole debate started with my comments about the effects the Crusades had on religion, but you're mixing politics in with religion. Politicaly, the Seljuqs were expanding an empire, so yes, they were politicaly war-like, as was almost every other large group of people at the time, it was an era of unrest with empire building and invasions and wars all over the place but the Islamic religion at the time was quite the opposite. They didn't enforce their religion upon the areas they expanded into, and as far as conquerers go, they were pretty decent folks. Those under their rule pretty much got to carry on as they had already been living, just with new rulers in place, life under them was pretty peaceful, creative and dynamic, as almost any reading you do on the Islamic Golden Age will attest.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : That's fine, but it doesn't help your case, because the invasion of Jerusalem is still occasioned by the the Seljuk conquest of Turkey. No doubt, once the ball got rolling everybody became aggressive as shit. But that doesn't mean that we're looking at a simplistic Xns = barbaric aggressors, Muslims = peace-loving enlightened culture.
What case? That the Crusades changed Islam for the worse? It did. Or that the Crusaders were the aggressors? As far as marching into Jerusalem is concerened, they were, as for the re-taking of Anatolia, possibly they were originaly acting on a call for help from the Byzantines, but they still ended up taking huge areas for themselves, aggressively, before going on to Jerusalem, which had definately been Islamic for hundreds of years. They started as the saviours of Anatolia, then became as bad, possibly worse, than the very people they were apparently defending Anatolia against. The whole Anatolia thing was used as a political exuse for Catholic expansion into Jerusalem.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : Meaning that it was a half-truth. Oversimplification is required to tell the simple story of the barbaric Christians warmongering against the peace-loving enlightened Muslims, but when we get the whole truth the issue turns out to be really complex. The Crusades were a factor in the Muslims' fall, but the Mongols were the decisive cause. The Europeans were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff, but the Turks were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff too. When you tell the whole story, it's not simple either way. It's not vile Europeans against righteous Arabs, nor is it vile Arabs against righteous Europeans. It's just a cluster-fuck.
War is never black and white, we all know that, but no amount of pedanticism and bad language is is going to change the fact that Islam was a pretty peaceful religion that allowed the Islamic Golden Age to happen at the time
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : Which was nothing new in the ancient world, so what's your point?
Well my point is obviously that threatening people with eternal torture is actualy quite a bit different from 'evangelical conversion that helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples'. This was not some pleasant exercise in knocking on doors, having a natter over a cup of tea and leaving a pamphlet behind. Representatives from Rome were literaly saying 'be Christians or burn in hell' and after the De Fide Catolica edict of Theodosius I, Catholicism became manditory.
It doesn't matter who Theodosius was thinking of when he wrote it, it still basicaly says that if you don't believe in God and the Christian Trinity, then the authority of Rome will punish you.
Also, while we're being Mr. Pedantic, the threat of burning in Hell for eternity was actualy something new. Most religions before Christianity didn't believe in an eternal punishment or a burning one either. Judaism for instance believed in a temporary punishment which cleansed the soul, and the lake of fire is only really known in ancient Egyptian religion before Christianity adopted it. Most other religions just believed in a deep, dark pit or abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : Sure, Theodosius was a bastard. For that matter, Julian was an amazing man. But this is irrelevant: Julian preceded Theodosius, so paganism was already dead and Christianity ubiquitous before Theodosius did anything. This edict was really aimed against Arian sects who were in schism against Nicene orthodoxy -- Christians, not pagans -- which is why it mentions the Pope and Bishop of Alexandria.
It really doesn't matter who it was 'aimed' at, it doesn't actualy single out anyone in particular, so the edict essentialy makes Catholicism manditory for everyone and any belief to the contrary punishable.
That's quite different to simple 'evangelical conversion'.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : Meaning that it was a half-truth. Oversimplification is required to tell the simple story of the barbaric Christians warmongering against the peace-loving enlightened Muslims, but when we get the whole truth the issue turns out to be really complex. The Crusades were a factor in the Muslims' fall, but the Mongols were the decisive cause. The Europeans were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff, but the Turks were aggressors and did all sorts of terrible stuff too. When you tell the whole story, it's not simple either way. It's not vile Europeans against righteous Arabs, nor is it vile Arabs against righteous Europeans. It's just a cluster-fuck.
War is never black and white, we all know that, but no amount of pedanticism and bad language is is going to change the fact that Islam was a pretty peaceful religion that allowed the Islamic Golden Age to happen at the time
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : Which was nothing new in the ancient world, so what's your point?
Well my point is obviously that threatening people with eternal torture is actualy quite a bit different from 'evangelical conversion that helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples'. This was not some pleasant exercise in knocking on doors, having a natter over a cup of tea and leaving a pamphlet behind. Representatives from Rome were literaly saying 'be Christians or burn in hell' and after the De Fide Catolica edict of Theodosius I, Catholicism became manditory.
It doesn't matter who Theodosius was thinking of when he wrote it, it still basicaly says that if you don't believe in God and the Christian Trinity, then the authority of Rome will punish you.
Also, while we're being Mr. Pedantic, the threat of burning in Hell for eternity was actualy something new. Most religions before Christianity didn't believe in an eternal punishment or a burning one either. Judaism for instance believed in a temporary punishment which cleansed the soul, and the lake of fire is only really known in ancient Egyptian religion before Christianity adopted it. Most other religions just believed in a deep, dark pit or abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 12:51pm : Sure, Theodosius was a bastard. For that matter, Julian was an amazing man. But this is irrelevant: Julian preceded Theodosius, so paganism was already dead and Christianity ubiquitous before Theodosius did anything. This edict was really aimed against Arian sects who were in schism against Nicene orthodoxy -- Christians, not pagans -- which is why it mentions the Pope and Bishop of Alexandria.
It really doesn't matter who it was 'aimed' at, it doesn't actualy single out anyone in particular, so the edict essentialy makes Catholicism manditory for everyone and any belief to the contrary punishable.
That's quite different to simple 'evangelical conversion'.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 1:27pm : I've never said otherwise? Once the floodgates were opened, the shit hit the fan, end of story. I've said that from the beginning. I'm just saying that your simple story of evil Christians picking on peaceful Muslims is a convenient half-truth.
Would this be the same kind of half truth as your simple story of Christianity spreading purely because of peaceful 'Evangelical conversion' that 'built bridges' between paganism and Christianity?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 1:27pm : Well, that's not all I've said. I have also said that there were plenty of people with, relatively-speaking, good intentions -- piety gone awry and all that -- and that the Crusades were not simply a ruthless power play by the Pope. You can list all the atrocities in the world and still not have proven that Urban was some Machiavellian mastermind -- again, his actual writings indicate quite the opposite. Similarly, the extant writings of the Crusaders indicate that well-intentioned (but somewhat misled) people get the ball rolling and then all sorts of violent bastards were able to tag along.
Obviously that doesn't exculpate anybody and make the papal apology foolish. Obviously that doesn't deny that many, many terrible things were done. It just means that it's not the simple story you're telling -- the well-worn rag about violent religious people who just can't stop picking on the peaceful, enlightened humanists.
I never said that Urban was some 'Machiavellian mastermind', just that the results of him starting the Crusades led to the most barbaric era of Christianity and the end of the Islamic Renaissance.
As for Urban's writings, no exact transcription of Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont that instigated the Crusades actualy exists. The five extant versions of the speech that do exist were written down quite a bit later, and they differ widely from one another.
But it was Urban who bestowed extraordinary prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I, who's job it was to bring Campania and Sicily firmly into the Catholic sphere. He was free to appoint bishops, free to collect Church revenues and forward them to the papacy (which proved very lucrative), and free to sit in judgment on ecclesiastical questions.
Does that sound like the actions of someone who wasn't actualy planning on taking over Byzantine areas as well as established Muslim areas?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 1:27pm : I've never said otherwise? Once the floodgates were opened, the shit hit the fan, end of story. I've said that from the beginning. I'm just saying that your simple story of evil Christians picking on peaceful Muslims is a convenient half-truth.
Would this be the same kind of half truth as your simple story of Christianity spreading purely because of peaceful 'Evangelical conversion' that 'built bridges' between paganism and Christianity?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 1:27pm : Well, that's not all I've said. I have also said that there were plenty of people with, relatively-speaking, good intentions -- piety gone awry and all that -- and that the Crusades were not simply a ruthless power play by the Pope. You can list all the atrocities in the world and still not have proven that Urban was some Machiavellian mastermind -- again, his actual writings indicate quite the opposite. Similarly, the extant writings of the Crusaders indicate that well-intentioned (but somewhat misled) people get the ball rolling and then all sorts of violent bastards were able to tag along.
Obviously that doesn't exculpate anybody and make the papal apology foolish. Obviously that doesn't deny that many, many terrible things were done. It just means that it's not the simple story you're telling -- the well-worn rag about violent religious people who just can't stop picking on the peaceful, enlightened humanists.
I never said that Urban was some 'Machiavellian mastermind', just that the results of him starting the Crusades led to the most barbaric era of Christianity and the end of the Islamic Renaissance.
As for Urban's writings, no exact transcription of Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont that instigated the Crusades actualy exists. The five extant versions of the speech that do exist were written down quite a bit later, and they differ widely from one another.
But it was Urban who bestowed extraordinary prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I, who's job it was to bring Campania and Sicily firmly into the Catholic sphere. He was free to appoint bishops, free to collect Church revenues and forward them to the papacy (which proved very lucrative), and free to sit in judgment on ecclesiastical questions.
Does that sound like the actions of someone who wasn't actualy planning on taking over Byzantine areas as well as established Muslim areas?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 3:33pm : My point was that Islam became the religion we know today as a result of the Crusades. Before the Crusades, during the Islamic Golden Age, Islam was a much more relaxed religion, then, due to the Crusades, it faced rapid changes from the 12th century onwards. There was an increasing lack of tolerance of intellectual debate and freedom of thought that led to the Islam we know today.
This whole debate started with my comments about the effects the Crusades had on religion, but you're mixing politics in with religion. Politicaly, the Seljuqs were expanding an empire, so yes, they were politicaly war-like, as was almost every other large group of people at the time, it was an era of unrest with empire building and invasions and wars all over the place but the Islamic religion at the time was quite the opposite. They didn't enforce their religion upon the areas they expanded into, and as far as conquerers go, they were pretty decent folks. Those under their rule pretty much got to carry on as they had already been living, just with new rulers in place, life under them was pretty peaceful, creative and dynamic, as almost any reading you do on the Islamic Golden Age will attest.
Basically it seems you're ceding that I'm right that with respect to the occasioning conflict of the First Crusade the Muslims were the aggressors and the Christians the defenders. But then you're drawing a line and saying that, well, that's just political violence; religiously, Islam was in fact the peace-loving, enlightened religion you've insisted. Now, this is a pretty dubious dichotomy, given that basically no person in all of history outside the modern West would distinguish the political and religious world like this, but even within the terms of the dichotomy you're going to run into trouble. The Crusades were originally justified on two grounds: First, helping the East. Second, the atrocities committed against Christian pilgrims in Muslim lands. These atrocities won't allow us to make a simple division between aggressive Christians and peaceful Muslims, even with the political/religious dichotomy.
I recognize fully that, in its better moments, the Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West. But that doesn't mean that both sides weren't pushing when the fight started.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 3:33pm : What case?
Your case that the Crusades can be aptly described as barbaric Christian warmongering against the peace-loving, enlightened Muslims.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 7th, 2009 at 3:33pm : Or that the Crusaders were the aggressors? As far as marching into Jerusalem is concerened, they were, as for the re-taking of Anatolia, possibly they were originaly acting on a call for help from the Byzantines, but they still ended up taking huge areas for themselves, aggressively, before going on to Jerusalem, which had definately been Islamic for hundreds of years. They started as the saviours of Anatolia, then became as bad, possibly worse, than the very people they were apparently defending Anatolia against. The whole Anatolia thing was used as a political exuse for Catholic expansion into Jerusalem.
I probably could have written this entire paragraph, until that last sentence. It seems you've started with the commitment that Christians are bad and will take any opportunity to read that commitment into the history.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-07 15:33:15'] My point was that Islam became the religion we know today as a result of the Crusades. Before the Crusades, during the Islamic Golden Age, Islam was a much more relaxed religion, then, due to the Crusades, it faced rapid changes from the 12th century onwards. There was an increasing lack of tolerance of intellectual debate and freedom of thought that led to the Islam we know today.
This whole debate started with my comments about the effects the Crusades had on religion, but you're mixing politics in with religion. Politicaly, the Seljuqs were expanding an empire, so yes, they were politicaly war-like, as was almost every other large group of people at the time, it was an era of unrest with empire building and invasions and wars all over the place but the Islamic religion at the time was quite the opposite. They didn't enforce their religion upon the areas they expanded into, and as far as conquerers go, they were pretty decent folks. Those under their rule pretty much got to carry on as they had already been living, just with new rulers in place, life under them was pretty peaceful, creative and dynamic, as almost any reading you do on the Islamic Golden Age will attest.[/quote] Basically it seems you're ceding that I'm right that with respect to the occasioning conflict of the First Crusade the Muslims were the aggressors and the Christians the defenders. But then you're drawing a line and saying that, well, that's just political violence; religiously, Islam was in fact the peace-loving, enlightened religion you've insisted. Now, this is a pretty dubious dichotomy, given that basically no person in all of history outside the modern West would distinguish the political and religious world like this, but even within the terms of the dichotomy you're going to run into trouble. The Crusades were originally justified on two grounds: First, helping the East. Second, the atrocities committed against Christian pilgrims in Muslim lands. These atrocities won't allow us to make a simple division between aggressive Christians and peaceful Muslims, even with the political/religious dichotomy.
I recognize fully that, in its better moments, the Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West. But that doesn't mean that both sides weren't pushing when the fight started.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-07 15:33:15']What case?[/quote] Your case that the Crusades can be aptly described as barbaric Christian warmongering against the peace-loving, enlightened Muslims.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-07 15:33:15']Or that the Crusaders were the aggressors? As far as marching into Jerusalem is concerened, they were, as for the re-taking of Anatolia, possibly they were originaly acting on a call for help from the Byzantines, but they still ended up taking huge areas for themselves, aggressively, before going on to Jerusalem, which had definately been Islamic for hundreds of years. They started as the saviours of Anatolia, then became as bad, possibly worse, than the very people they were apparently defending Anatolia against. The whole Anatolia thing was used as a political exuse for Catholic expansion into Jerusalem.[/quote] I probably could have written this entire paragraph, until that last sentence. It seems you've started with the commitment that Christians are bad and will take any opportunity to read that commitment into the history.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 3:38am : War is never black and white, we all know that, but no amount of pedanticism and bad language is is going to change the fact that Islam was a pretty peaceful religion that allowed the Islamic Golden Age to happen at the time
It strikes me that the cornerstone of your entire case is just the name "Islamic Golden Age." But the name won't really help. With respect to the rest of the history of Islam, no doubt this was a Golden Age. But with respect to world history, if this was a Golden Age then we should change the name of the Middle Ages to the "Christian Triple Platinum Age" or something. As I wrote earlier:
Islam
traipsed around the nearby areas, conquering everything it could, and so experienced a "golden age" in the sense that it could take all the
learning from these conquered lands and synthesize it. But it really
didn't develop too much in the way of new things. Compare this
to Medieval Europe: the wheeled plow and rigid horse collar,
watersheels and coal power, wrought and cast iron, the flying buttress
and Gothic arch, the mechanical clock and magnetic compass -- even
eyeglasses. It saw protection, dignity, and even privilege for women,
and at its height saw the virtual extinction of slavery. The major
municipalities held out free hospitals for the poor, and the so-called
"Peace of God" and "Truce of God" prevented war against non-combatants
and private wars, and forbade war on certain days of the year, which
eventually accounted for 3/4 of the calendar. The "Golden Age of Islam" was nothing like this.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 3:38am : Well my point is obviously that threatening people with eternal torture is actualy quite a bit different from 'evangelical conversion that helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples'. This was not some pleasant exercise in knocking on doors, having a natter over a cup of tea and leaving a pamphlet behind.
Of course not. They weren't some bland bourgeois automatons who had nothing better to do with their lives than play with doilies and talk nonsense. They had something important -- vitally important -- to tell these people. And so they told them, in earnest, because they had something that actually mattered. They told them despite the fact that they were as likely to be killed as to see the conversion of the people they were going out to serve.
What's relevant here is that it wasn't the military force of Rome that spread Christianity. By the time Christianity had any military force behind it within the Empire, it had already supplanted paganism and filled the Empire. And Christianity didn't spread to "barbarian" lands by Rome's military might either: In fact it was more often the opposite, as existing Christian conversion within "barbarian" lands so often served as a bridge between the Empire and these new peoples. So, contrary to your claim above, Christianity did not spread primarily as a result of imperial force.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 3:38am : It doesn't matter who Theodosius was thinking of when he wrote it, it still basicaly says that if you don't believe in God and the Christian Trinity, then the authority of Rome will punish you.
What it means is that you're missing the point. By the time Theodosius came around Christianity was already ubiquitous and paganism dead. His laws were not what spread Christianity.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 3:38am : Also, while we're being Mr. Pedantic, the threat of burning in Hell for eternity was actualy something new. Most religions before Christianity didn't believe in an eternal punishment or a burning one either. Judaism for instance believed in a temporary punishment which cleansed the soul, and the lake of fire is only really known in ancient Egyptian religion before Christianity adopted it. Most other religions just believed in a deep, dark pit or abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering.
At best you're saying that Christians understood the degree of divine punishment to be greater than the degree to which it was previously understood, but that's just splitting hairs. Divine wrath is divine wrath.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 3:38am : It really doesn't matter who it was 'aimed' at, it doesn't actualy single out anyone in particular, so the edict essentialy makes Catholicism manditory for everyone and any belief to the contrary punishable.
That's quite different to simple 'evangelical conversion'.
No, it means that "evangelical conversion" was already so effective that Christian schismatics were more significant than pagans.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 03:38:26']War is never black and white, we all know that, but no amount of pedanticism and bad language is is going to change the fact that Islam was a pretty peaceful religion that allowed the Islamic Golden Age to happen at the time[/quote] It strikes me that the cornerstone of your entire case is just the name "Islamic Golden Age." But the name won't really help. With respect to the rest of the history of Islam, no doubt this was a Golden Age. But with respect to world history, if this was a Golden Age then we should change the name of the Middle Ages to the "Christian Triple Platinum Age" or something. As I wrote earlier:
Islam
traipsed around the nearby areas, conquering everything it could, and so experienced a "golden age" in the sense that it could take all the
learning from these conquered lands and synthesize it. But it really
didn't develop too much in the way of new things. Compare this
to Medieval Europe: the wheeled plow and rigid horse collar,
watersheels and coal power, wrought and cast iron, the flying buttress
and Gothic arch, the mechanical clock and magnetic compass -- even
eyeglasses. It saw protection, dignity, and even privilege for women,
and at its height saw the virtual extinction of slavery. The major
municipalities held out free hospitals for the poor, and the so-called
"Peace of God" and "Truce of God" prevented war against non-combatants
and private wars, and forbade war on certain days of the year, which
eventually accounted for 3/4 of the calendar. The "Golden Age of Islam" was nothing like this.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 03:38:26']Well my point is obviously that threatening people with eternal torture is actualy quite a bit different from 'evangelical conversion that helped to serve as a bridge between Roman and barbarian peoples'. This was not some pleasant exercise in knocking on doors, having a natter over a cup of tea and leaving a pamphlet behind.[/quote] Of course not. They weren't some bland bourgeois automatons who had nothing better to do with their lives than play with doilies and talk nonsense. They had something important -- vitally important -- to tell these people. And so they told them, in earnest, because they had something that actually mattered. They told them despite the fact that they were as likely to be killed as to see the conversion of the people they were going out to serve.
What's relevant here is that it wasn't the military force of Rome that spread Christianity. By the time Christianity had any military force behind it within the Empire, it had already supplanted paganism and filled the Empire. And Christianity didn't spread to "barbarian" lands by Rome's military might either: In fact it was more often the opposite, as existing Christian conversion within "barbarian" lands so often served as a bridge between the Empire and these new peoples. So, contrary to your claim above, Christianity did not spread primarily as a result of imperial force.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 03:38:26']It doesn't matter who Theodosius was thinking of when he wrote it, it still basicaly says that if you don't believe in God and the Christian Trinity, then the authority of Rome will punish you.[/quote] What it means is that you're missing the point. By the time Theodosius came around Christianity was already ubiquitous and paganism dead. His laws were not what spread Christianity.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 03:38:26']Also, while we're being Mr. Pedantic, the threat of burning in Hell for eternity was actualy something new. Most religions before Christianity didn't believe in an eternal punishment or a burning one either. Judaism for instance believed in a temporary punishment which cleansed the soul, and the lake of fire is only really known in ancient Egyptian religion before Christianity adopted it. Most other religions just believed in a deep, dark pit or abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering.[/quote] At best you're saying that Christians understood the degree of divine punishment to be greater than the degree to which it was previously understood, but that's just splitting hairs. Divine wrath is divine wrath.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 03:38:26']It really doesn't matter who it was 'aimed' at, it doesn't actualy single out anyone in particular, so the edict essentialy makes Catholicism manditory for everyone and any belief to the contrary punishable.
That's quite different to simple 'evangelical conversion'.[/QUOTE] No, it means that "evangelical conversion" was already so effective that Christian schismatics were more significant than pagans.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 4:47am : Would this be the same kind of half truth as your simple story of Christianity spreading purely because of peaceful 'Evangelical conversion' that 'built bridges' between paganism and Christianity?
No, because in my case Christianity had already spread before the Empire's might was behind it.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 4:47am : I never said that Urban was some 'Machiavellian mastermind', just that the results of him starting the Crusades led to the most barbaric era of Christianity and the end of the Islamic Renaissance.
Well, you said that while the ostensible justification for the Crusades was defense of others, he was actually using the Crusades as a convenient way to expand the West's lands, grabbing some from the East and some from the Muslims. I'd certainly call that a Machiavellian move.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 4:47am : But it was Urban who bestowed extraordinary prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I, who's job it was to bring Campania and Sicily firmly into the Catholic sphere. He was free to appoint bishops, free to collect Church revenues and forward them to the papacy (which proved very lucrative), and free to sit in judgment on ecclesiastical questions.
Does that sound like the actions of someone who wasn't actualy planning on taking over Byzantine areas as well as established Muslim areas?
It seems you're grasping at straws now. Name-calling and really reading into minor events aren't going to help. =/
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 04:47:30']Would this be the same kind of half truth as your simple story of Christianity spreading purely because of peaceful 'Evangelical conversion' that 'built bridges' between paganism and Christianity?[/quote] No, because in my case Christianity had already spread before the Empire's might was behind it.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 04:47:30']I never said that Urban was some 'Machiavellian mastermind', just that the results of him starting the Crusades led to the most barbaric era of Christianity and the end of the Islamic Renaissance.[/quote] Well, you said that while the ostensible justification for the Crusades was defense of others, he was actually using the Crusades as a convenient way to expand the West's lands, grabbing some from the East and some from the Muslims. I'd certainly call that a Machiavellian move.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-08 04:47:30']But it was Urban who bestowed extraordinary prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I, who's job it was to bring Campania and Sicily firmly into the Catholic sphere. He was free to appoint bishops, free to collect Church revenues and forward them to the papacy (which proved very lucrative), and free to sit in judgment on ecclesiastical questions.
Does that sound like the actions of someone who wasn't actualy planning on taking over Byzantine areas as well as established Muslim areas?[/QUOTE] It seems you're grasping at straws now. Name-calling and really reading into minor events aren't going to help. =/
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : I recognize fully that, in its better moments, the Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West. But that doesn't mean that both sides weren't pushing when the fight started.
Thankyou. That's in complete agreement with the point I was making.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : Basically it seems you're ceding that I'm right that with respect to the occasioning conflict of the First Crusade the Muslims were the aggressors and the Christians the defenders. But then you're drawing a line and saying that, well, that's just political violence; religiously, Islam was in fact the peace-loving, enlightened religion you've insisted.
Which you yourself agreed with when you said "the Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West"
You're attempting to make it look like I said that the Muslims were 'completely' peaceful, when I haven't, I'm stating that they were peaceful in comparison to the Crusaders.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : What case? Your case that the Crusades can be aptly described as barbaric Christian warmongering against the peace-loving, enlightened Muslims.
Which, compared to the Crusaders, that's exactly what the Muslims were. I'm not saying they were perfect, but they were a lot more tolerant than the Christians, as you just said. "The Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West."
The Crusaders by all accounts were warmongers. Before they even got out of Europe, they had commited atrocities against the Jews in German and Hungarian towns, then later also in those of France and England, and the massacres of Jews in Palestine and Syria have become a significant part of the history of anti-Semitism, although no Crusade was ever even declared against Jews.
The eventual fall of the Christian Byzantine Empire was mostly caused by the Fourth Crusade's attack against the Eastern Orthodoxy, after the Crusaders took Constantinople in 1204, the Byzantines never again had as large or strong a state and finally fell in 1453.
Some 2 million Europeans died in the Crusades. The Northern Crusades caused great loss of life among the pagan Polabian Slavs, and they consequently offered little opposition to German colonization.
The conquest of Prussia was accomplished with much bloodshed, during which native Prussians who remained unbaptised were subjugated, killed, or exiled.
The Albigensian Crusade killed an estimated 1 million people, not only Cathars but much of the population of southern France.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : I probably could have written this entire paragraph, until that last sentence. It seems you've started with the commitment that Christians are bad and will take any opportunity to read that commitment into the history
Ahh, that'd be because you're assuming that because I'm an 'evil' atheist, then I must assume that all Christianity is bad.
If that were the case, why d'you think I get along so well with so many of the guys here? I'm simply stating that as far as history is concerened about the Crusades, the overall picture is one of barbaric Christian Crusaders, slaughtering their way across Europe and the Middle East.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : I recognize fully that, in its better moments, the Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West. But that doesn't mean that both sides weren't pushing when the fight started.
Thankyou. That's in complete agreement with the point I was making.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : Basically it seems you're ceding that I'm right that with respect to the occasioning conflict of the First Crusade the Muslims were the aggressors and the Christians the defenders. But then you're drawing a line and saying that, well, that's just political violence; religiously, Islam was in fact the peace-loving, enlightened religion you've insisted.
Which you yourself agreed with when you said "the Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West"
You're attempting to make it look like I said that the Muslims were 'completely' peaceful, when I haven't, I'm stating that they were peaceful in comparison to the Crusaders.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : What case? Your case that the Crusades can be aptly described as barbaric Christian warmongering against the peace-loving, enlightened Muslims.
Which, compared to the Crusaders, that's exactly what the Muslims were. I'm not saying they were perfect, but they were a lot more tolerant than the Christians, as you just said. "The Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West."
The Crusaders by all accounts were warmongers. Before they even got out of Europe, they had commited atrocities against the Jews in German and Hungarian towns, then later also in those of France and England, and the massacres of Jews in Palestine and Syria have become a significant part of the history of anti-Semitism, although no Crusade was ever even declared against Jews.
The eventual fall of the Christian Byzantine Empire was mostly caused by the Fourth Crusade's attack against the Eastern Orthodoxy, after the Crusaders took Constantinople in 1204, the Byzantines never again had as large or strong a state and finally fell in 1453.
Some 2 million Europeans died in the Crusades. The Northern Crusades caused great loss of life among the pagan Polabian Slavs, and they consequently offered little opposition to German colonization.
The conquest of Prussia was accomplished with much bloodshed, during which native Prussians who remained unbaptised were subjugated, killed, or exiled.
The Albigensian Crusade killed an estimated 1 million people, not only Cathars but much of the population of southern France.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:18pm : I probably could have written this entire paragraph, until that last sentence. It seems you've started with the commitment that Christians are bad and will take any opportunity to read that commitment into the history
Ahh, that'd be because you're assuming that because I'm an 'evil' atheist, then I must assume that all Christianity is bad.
If that were the case, why d'you think I get along so well with so many of the guys here? I'm simply stating that as far as history is concerened about the Crusades, the overall picture is one of barbaric Christian Crusaders, slaughtering their way across Europe and the Middle East.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:40pm : It strikes me that the cornerstone of your entire case is just the name "Islamic Golden Age." But the name won't really help. With respect to the rest of the history of Islam, no doubt this was a Golden Age. But with respect to world history, if this was a Golden Age then we should change the name of the Middle Ages to the "Christian Triple Platinum Age" or something. As I wrote earlier:
Islam traipsed around the nearby areas, conquering everything it could, and so experienced a "golden age" in the sense that it could take all the learning from these conquered lands and synthesize it.
So much different to Christianity then, which as part of the Roman Empire took all the learning from conquered lands and synthesized it.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:40pm : But it really didn't develop too much in the way of new things. Compare this to Medieval Europe: the wheeled plough and rigid horse collar, watersheels and coal power, wrought and cast iron, the flying buttress and Gothic arch, the mechanical clock and magnetic compass -- even eyeglasses.
Yes, let's compare them.
Firstly, eyeglasses wouldn't have been possible without Ibn al-Haytham's development of optics.
The Islamic Golden Age was responsible for the camera obscura, soap bar, tooth paste, shampoo, pure distillation, liquefaction, crystallization, purification, oxidization, evaporation, filtration, distilled alcohol, uric acid, nitric acid, alembic, valve, reciprocating suction piston pump, mechanized waterclocks, quilting, scalpel, bone saw, forceps, surgical catgut, vertical-axle windmill, inoculation, smallpox vaccine, fountain pen, cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, three-course meal, stained glass and quartz glass, and celestial globe.
Early scientific methods were developed in the Islamic world, Ibn al-Haytham is considered the pioneer of experimental physics, they cam up with use of experimentation and quantification to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation.
The earliest medical peer review, a process by which a committee of physicians investigate the medical care rendered in order to determine whether accepted standards of care have been met, is found in the 'Ethics of the Physician' written by Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi.
Geber is considered a pioneer of chemistry. The study of traditional alchemy and the theory of the transmutation of metals were first refuted by al-Kindi. In his Doubts about Galen, al-Razi was the first to prove both Aristotle's theory of classical elements and Galen's theory of humorism false using an experimental method.
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi stated the earliest early version of the law of conservation of mass, noting that a body of matter is able to change, but is not able to disappear.
The achievements of Muslim mathematicians during this period include the development of algebra and algorithms by Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwarizmi, the invention of spherical trigonometry, the addition of the decimal point notation to the Arabic numerals, the discovery of all the trigonometric functions besides sine, al-Kindi's introduction of cryptanalysis and frequency analysis, al-Karaji's introduction of algebraic calculus and proof by mathematical induction, the development of analytic geometry and the earliest general formula for infinitesimal and integral calculus by Ibn al-Haytham and the beginning of algebraic geometry by Omar Khayyam.
Muslim physicians made many significant contributions to medicine, including anatomy, experimental medicine, ophthalmology, pathology, the pharmaceutical sciences, physiology, surgery, etc. They also set up some of the earliest dedicated hospitals, including the first medical schools and psychiatric hospitals. Abu al-Qasim helped lay the foudations for modern surgery, with his Kitab al-Tasrif, in which he invented numerous surgical instruments, including the first instruments unique to women.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:40pm : It strikes me that the cornerstone of your entire case is just the name "Islamic Golden Age." But the name won't really help. With respect to the rest of the history of Islam, no doubt this was a Golden Age. But with respect to world history, if this was a Golden Age then we should change the name of the Middle Ages to the "Christian Triple Platinum Age" or something. As I wrote earlier:
Islam traipsed around the nearby areas, conquering everything it could, and so experienced a "golden age" in the sense that it could take all the learning from these conquered lands and synthesize it.
So much different to Christianity then, which as part of the Roman Empire took all the learning from conquered lands and synthesized it.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:40pm : But it really didn't develop too much in the way of new things. Compare this to Medieval Europe: the wheeled plough and rigid horse collar, watersheels and coal power, wrought and cast iron, the flying buttress and Gothic arch, the mechanical clock and magnetic compass -- even eyeglasses.
Yes, let's compare them.
Firstly, eyeglasses wouldn't have been possible without Ibn al-Haytham's development of optics.
The Islamic Golden Age was responsible for the camera obscura, soap bar, tooth paste, shampoo, pure distillation, liquefaction, crystallization, purification, oxidization, evaporation, filtration, distilled alcohol, uric acid, nitric acid, alembic, valve, reciprocating suction piston pump, mechanized waterclocks, quilting, scalpel, bone saw, forceps, surgical catgut, vertical-axle windmill, inoculation, smallpox vaccine, fountain pen, cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, three-course meal, stained glass and quartz glass, and celestial globe.
Early scientific methods were developed in the Islamic world, Ibn al-Haytham is considered the pioneer of experimental physics, they cam up with use of experimentation and quantification to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation.
The earliest medical peer review, a process by which a committee of physicians investigate the medical care rendered in order to determine whether accepted standards of care have been met, is found in the 'Ethics of the Physician' written by Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi.
Geber is considered a pioneer of chemistry. The study of traditional alchemy and the theory of the transmutation of metals were first refuted by al-Kindi. In his Doubts about Galen, al-Razi was the first to prove both Aristotle's theory of classical elements and Galen's theory of humorism false using an experimental method.
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi stated the earliest early version of the law of conservation of mass, noting that a body of matter is able to change, but is not able to disappear.
The achievements of Muslim mathematicians during this period include the development of algebra and algorithms by Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwarizmi, the invention of spherical trigonometry, the addition of the decimal point notation to the Arabic numerals, the discovery of all the trigonometric functions besides sine, al-Kindi's introduction of cryptanalysis and frequency analysis, al-Karaji's introduction of algebraic calculus and proof by mathematical induction, the development of analytic geometry and the earliest general formula for infinitesimal and integral calculus by Ibn al-Haytham and the beginning of algebraic geometry by Omar Khayyam.
Muslim physicians made many significant contributions to medicine, including anatomy, experimental medicine, ophthalmology, pathology, the pharmaceutical sciences, physiology, surgery, etc. They also set up some of the earliest dedicated hospitals, including the first medical schools and psychiatric hospitals. Abu al-Qasim helped lay the foudations for modern surgery, with his Kitab al-Tasrif, in which he invented numerous surgical instruments, including the first instruments unique to women.
Ibn Sina helped lay the foundations for modern medicine, with The Canon of Medicine, which was responsible for introducing systematic experimentation and quantification in physiology, the discovery of contagious disease, introduction of quarantine to limit their spread, introduction of experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, efficacy tests, and clinical pharmacology, the first descriptions on bacteria and viral organisms, distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy, contagious nature of tuberculosis, distribution of diseases by water and soil, skin troubles, sexually transmitted diseases, nervous ailments, use of ice to treat fevers, and separation of medicine from pharmacology.
They also made great advances in astronomy and the first observatory was built in Baghdad.
Muslim engineers in the Islamic world made a number of innovative industrial uses of hydropower, and early industrial uses of tidal power, wind power, steam power, fossil fuels such as petroleum, and early large factory complexes. Muslim engineers also invented crankshafts and water turbines, employed gears in mills and water-raising machines, and pioneered the use of dams as a source of water power, used to provide additional power to watermills and water-raising machines. Such advances made it possible for many industrial tasks that were previously driven by manual labour in ancient times to be mechanized and driven by machinery instead in the medieval Islamic world. The transfer of these technologies to medieval Europe had an influence on the Industrial Revolution.
I could go on and on about the advances the Muslims made in science during the Islamic Golden Age, technology, medicine, mathematics, agriculture, industry, market economies, ethics, (yes, ethics) but it'd just take up too many posts to list it all.
And y'say the westerners put a wheel on a plough?
Ibn Sina helped lay the foundations for modern medicine, with The Canon of Medicine, which was responsible for introducing systematic experimentation and quantification in physiology, the discovery of contagious disease, introduction of quarantine to limit their spread, introduction of experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, efficacy tests, and clinical pharmacology, the first descriptions on bacteria and viral organisms, distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy, contagious nature of tuberculosis, distribution of diseases by water and soil, skin troubles, sexually transmitted diseases, nervous ailments, use of ice to treat fevers, and separation of medicine from pharmacology.
They also made great advances in astronomy and the first observatory was built in Baghdad.
Muslim engineers in the Islamic world made a number of innovative industrial uses of hydropower, and early industrial uses of tidal power, wind power, steam power, fossil fuels such as petroleum, and early large factory complexes. Muslim engineers also invented crankshafts and water turbines, employed gears in mills and water-raising machines, and pioneered the use of dams as a source of water power, used to provide additional power to watermills and water-raising machines. Such advances made it possible for many industrial tasks that were previously driven by manual labour in ancient times to be mechanized and driven by machinery instead in the medieval Islamic world. The transfer of these technologies to medieval Europe had an influence on the Industrial Revolution.
I could go on and on about the advances the Muslims made in science during the Islamic Golden Age, technology, medicine, mathematics, agriculture, industry, market economies, ethics, (yes, ethics) but it'd just take up too many posts to list it all.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:53pm : Well, you said that while the ostensible justification for the Crusades was defense of others, he was actually using the Crusades as a convenient way to expand the West's lands, grabbing some from the East and some from the Muslims. I'd certainly call that a Machiavellian move.
I said that maybe that wasn't his original plan, but that's the way it turned out.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:53pm :
It seems you're grasping at straws now. Name-calling and really reading into minor events aren't going to help. =/
Grasping at straws? I'm simply showing you the evidence, I'm not saying it's 'proof' of anything, but it definately suggests that by giving Roger I powers that would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, then Urban was probably thinking about expanding into the Byzantine Empire.
To reiterate my point, I'm saying that although I'm not directly claiming that Urban definately had Machiavellian tendancies towards the Byzantines, the evidence would seem to suggest that he did.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:53pm : Well, you said that while the ostensible justification for the Crusades was defense of others, he was actually using the Crusades as a convenient way to expand the West's lands, grabbing some from the East and some from the Muslims. I'd certainly call that a Machiavellian move.
I said that maybe that wasn't his original plan, but that's the way it turned out.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 8th, 2009 at 8:53pm :
It seems you're grasping at straws now. Name-calling and really reading into minor events aren't going to help. =/
Grasping at straws? I'm simply showing you the evidence, I'm not saying it's 'proof' of anything, but it definately suggests that by giving Roger I powers that would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, then Urban was probably thinking about expanding into the Byzantine Empire.
To reiterate my point, I'm saying that although I'm not directly claiming that Urban definately had Machiavellian tendancies towards the Byzantines, the evidence would seem to suggest that he did.
SlackerBabbath wrote You're attempting to make it look like I said that the Muslims were 'completely' peaceful, when I haven't, I'm stating that they were peaceful in comparison to the Crusaders.
Of course violence can exist in a peace loving, enlightened culture, because PEOPLE are violent. But surely systemic and large-scale violence would be minimal and quashed quickly.
SlackerBabbath wrote Which, compared to the Crusaders, that's exactly what the Muslims were. I'm not saying they were perfect, but they were a lot more tolerant than the Christians, as you just said. "The Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West."
The Crusaders by all accounts were warmongers. Before they even got out of Europe, they had commited atrocities against the Jews in German and Hungarian towns...
This really isn't doing justice to the context of what I've said. Earlier in this sentence you've quoted so many times I said, "in its better moments." Similarly I can say that, in his better moments, George W. Bush was quite a popular president. It doesn't mean that that's the end of the story.
What have I said happened? I've said that Muslim violence occasioned the call for the Crusade. I've said that the people who got the ball rolling were, on the whole, relatively well-intentioned. But when you hand out open invitations for war, people who are brutal and bloodthirsty will come from far and wide to get a piece of the action. And this is exactly what happened. Worse, because they were involved in a Holy War they became more emboldened to realize their potential for atrocity.
If this is what I'm saying, you're not contradicting me. You're saying that, once the ball got rolling, terrible men did terrible things. And that's exactly what I've said. The relevant issue is how that ball got rolling. You've characterized that beginning as warmongering Christians against peace loving, enlightened Muslims, but I've argued against that. As I've pointed out, the occasion for the call to the Crusade was Muslim violence. The Seljuks had reclaimed Anatolia and were in striking distance of Constantinople.
You respond that this is political, not religious violence. They wouldn't have recognized that distinction, but even if they had it wouldn't help because there was also plenty of religious and cultural violence. The second half of the original justification for the Crusade was the increasing tide of violence against Christian pilgrims; surely a truly religiously tolerant people wouldn't be increasingly persecuting foreigners who were simply visiting on a peaceful religious pilgrimage? Likewise, the Seljuk rule of Palestine was a period of murder, destruction, economic oppression, etc. It was quite nasty.
So regardless of what was true at its better moments, in its worse moments Islam was not at root a peace loving, enlightened people.
SlackerBabbath wrote The eventual fall of the Christian Byzantine Empire was mostly caused by the Fourth Crusade's attack against the Eastern Orthodoxy, after the Crusaders took Constantinople in 1204, the Byzantines never again had as large or strong a state and finally fell in 1453.
Some 2 million Europeans died in the Crusades. The Northern Crusades caused great loss of life among the pagan Polabian Slavs, and they consequently offered little opposition to German colonization.
The conquest of Prussia was accomplished with much bloodshed, during which native Prussians who remained unbaptised were subjugated, killed, or exiled.
The Albigensian Crusade killed an estimated 1 million people, not only Cathars but much of the population of southern France.
It seemed to me that you didn't have a consistent writing style so I googled a few of these sentences, and it turns out that they're all cut and pasted out of Wikipedia. The problem with cut and pasting out of Wikipedia is that it misses the context of the discussion (well, and its uneven credibility). Everything you're talking about happened at least half a century after the beginning of the Crusades, some more than a century, so is entirely irrelevant to the issue of why and how the Crusades began. Additionally, the Fourth Crusade was specifically condemned by the Pope, and the Albigensian Crusade began with a policy of nothing beyond theological persuasion but was elevated to violence and theft by the Cathars and their supporters.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath']You're attempting to make it look like I said that the Muslims were 'completely' peaceful, when I haven't, I'm stating that they were peaceful in comparison to the Crusaders.[/quote]Of course violence can exist in a peace loving, enlightened culture, because PEOPLE are violent. But surely systemic and large-scale violence would be minimal and quashed quickly.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath']Which, compared to the Crusaders, that's exactly what the Muslims were. I'm not saying they were perfect, but they were a lot more tolerant than the Christians, as you just said. "The Muslim Empire instituted a brand of religious tolerance of its conquered peoples that was almost unprecedented, and certainly foreign to the West."
The Crusaders by all accounts were warmongers. Before they even got out of Europe, they had commited atrocities against the Jews in German and Hungarian towns...[/quote] This really isn't doing justice to the context of what I've said. Earlier in this sentence you've quoted so many times I said, "in its better moments." Similarly I can say that, in his better moments, George W. Bush was quite a popular president. It doesn't mean that that's the end of the story.
What have I said happened? I've said that Muslim violence occasioned the call for the Crusade. I've said that the people who got the ball rolling were, on the whole, relatively well-intentioned. But when you hand out open invitations for war, people who are brutal and bloodthirsty will come from far and wide to get a piece of the action. And this is exactly what happened. Worse, because they were involved in a Holy War they became more emboldened to realize their potential for atrocity.
If this is what I'm saying, you're not contradicting me. You're saying that, once the ball got rolling, terrible men did terrible things. And that's exactly what I've said. The relevant issue is how that ball got rolling. You've characterized that beginning as warmongering Christians against peace loving, enlightened Muslims, but I've argued against that. As I've pointed out, the occasion for the call to the Crusade was Muslim violence. The Seljuks had reclaimed Anatolia and were in striking distance of Constantinople.
You respond that this is political, not religious violence. They wouldn't have recognized that distinction, but even if they had it wouldn't help because there was also plenty of religious and cultural violence. The second half of the original justification for the Crusade was the increasing tide of violence against Christian pilgrims; surely a truly religiously tolerant people wouldn't be increasingly persecuting foreigners who were simply visiting on a peaceful religious pilgrimage? Likewise, the Seljuk rule of Palestine was a period of murder, destruction, economic oppression, etc. It was quite nasty.
So regardless of what was true [i]at its better moments[/i], in its worse moments Islam was not at root a peace loving, enlightened people.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath']The eventual fall of the Christian Byzantine Empire was mostly caused by the Fourth Crusade's attack against the Eastern Orthodoxy, after the Crusaders took Constantinople in 1204, the Byzantines never again had as large or strong a state and finally fell in 1453.
Some 2 million Europeans died in the Crusades. The Northern Crusades caused great loss of life among the pagan Polabian Slavs, and they consequently offered little opposition to German colonization.
The conquest of Prussia was accomplished with much bloodshed, during which native Prussians who remained unbaptised were subjugated, killed, or exiled.
The Albigensian Crusade killed an estimated 1 million people, not only Cathars but much of the population of southern France.[/quote] It seemed to me that you didn't have a consistent writing style so I googled a few of these sentences, and it turns out that they're all cut and pasted out of Wikipedia. The problem with cut and pasting out of Wikipedia is that it misses the context of the discussion (well, and its uneven credibility). Everything you're talking about happened at least half a century after the beginning of the Crusades, some more than a century, so is entirely irrelevant to the issue of why and how the Crusades began. Additionally, the Fourth Crusade was specifically condemned by the Pope, and the Albigensian Crusade began with a policy of nothing beyond theological persuasion but was elevated to violence and theft by the Cathars and their supporters.
SlackerBabbath wrote So much different to Christianity then, which as part of the Roman Empire took all the learning from conquered lands and synthesized it.
That's immaterial, but yes, it is a bit different. For one, the expansion of the Roman Empire into areas of deep cultural advancement occurred centuries before the explosions of Christian culture, whether we're talking before the fall of the Empire or during the High Middle Ages. More importantly, though, Christian culture appropriated extrinsic sources in a way that went beyond commentary, repetition, or synthesis. In fact, Renaissance thinkers demonized the Middle Ages for their "corruption" of Greco-Roman culture, because they saw used it more as a springboard for the imagination than as a model to be copied, compared, or synthesized.
SlackerBabbath wrote Yes, let's compare them...
I could go on and on about the advances the Muslims made in science during the Islamic Golden Age, technology, medicine, mathematics, agriculture, industry, market economies, ethics, (yes, ethics) but it'd just take up too many posts to list it all.
And y'say the westerners put a wheel on a plough?
Wow, that is all copied straight from Wikipedia. I guess I could just copy from other parts of Wikipedia that you did not; after all, you said "let's compare them" but didn't copy from any sections on Christendom to do actual comparison. Instead, let's actually look at what you wrote.
Through conquest Islam had access to the thought of the Greeks, Egyptians, Eastern Christians, Persians, and Indians. Optics was one of the only areas in which late Greek science was still active, so we can't help but get a lot of optics. The Eastern Christians developed surgery, hospitals, etc., so we can't help but get a lot of medicine. With access to Greek, Babylonian, and Indian mathematics, mathematical advance was sure to follow. Experimentation and scientific method saw some development under Ibn al-Haytham and others, but also saw development under Christians like Grosseteste and Bacon; the tradition that birthed the Scientific Revolution came out of the Christian university, after all. And 'revolution' is an important word here: Islam never fundamentally thought outside the confines of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but in the 6th century John Philoponus was already preparing to overturn them; his work was lost due to Islamic conquest but after its rediscovery by Christendom almost immediately the stirrings of a revolution began.
So the truth behind this wall of cut 'n' pasted material is that yes, unquestionably, Islam was able to develop some of the traditions that it conquered, and there were glimmers here and there that maybe something new would peek out, but it was Christendom that fostered a truly new science.
As for the wheeled plough, well, of course it seems easy to dismiss agricultural technology from our standpoint of post-industrial snobbery, but the truth is that Medieval farming developments were quite radical and, as a fortunate consequence, provided space for the university to exist. But the significance of developments in the production and use of power -- water, coal, wind -- is already clear to we moderns, who are so desperately seeking for "alternate energy sources." Presumably in today's age of nifty iPhones, with digital clocks and GPS systems, we can see how significant mechanical clocks and magnetic compasses would be.
You don't seem to have offered counterpoints to any of the cultural advancements I mentioned. Did the Muslims provide protection, dignity, and even privilege for women? Was slavery virtually extinct under Muslim rule? Who came up with free hospitals for the poor in major municipalities? Did Islam institute the "Peace of God" or "Truce of God," drastically limiting the scope of war?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath']So much different to Christianity then, which as part of the Roman Empire took all the learning from conquered lands and synthesized it.[/quote] That's immaterial, but yes, it is a bit different. For one, the expansion of the Roman Empire into areas of deep cultural advancement occurred centuries before the explosions of Christian culture, whether we're talking before the fall of the Empire or during the High Middle Ages. More importantly, though, Christian culture appropriated extrinsic sources in a way that went beyond commentary, repetition, or synthesis. In fact, Renaissance thinkers demonized the Middle Ages for their "corruption" of Greco-Roman culture, because they saw used it more as a springboard for the imagination than as a model to be copied, compared, or synthesized.
I could go on and on about the advances the Muslims made in science during the Islamic Golden Age, technology, medicine, mathematics, agriculture, industry, market economies, ethics, (yes, ethics) but it'd just take up too many posts to list it all.
And y'say the westerners put a wheel on a plough?[/QUOTE] Wow, that is all copied straight from Wikipedia. I guess I could just copy from other parts of Wikipedia that you did not; after all, you said "let's compare them" but didn't copy from any sections on Christendom to do actual comparison. Instead, let's actually look at what you wrote.
Through conquest Islam had access to the thought of the Greeks, Egyptians, Eastern Christians, Persians, and Indians. Optics was one of the only areas in which late Greek science was still active, so we can't help but get a lot of optics. The Eastern Christians developed surgery, hospitals, etc., so we can't help but get a lot of medicine. With access to Greek, Babylonian, and Indian mathematics, mathematical advance was sure to follow. Experimentation and scientific method saw some development under Ibn al-Haytham and others, but also saw development under Christians like Grosseteste and Bacon; the tradition that birthed the Scientific Revolution came out of the Christian university, after all. And 'revolution' is an important word here: Islam never fundamentally thought outside the confines of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but in the 6th century John Philoponus was already preparing to overturn them; his work was lost due to Islamic conquest but after its rediscovery by Christendom almost immediately the stirrings of a revolution began.
So the truth behind this wall of cut 'n' pasted material is that yes, unquestionably, Islam was able to develop some of the traditions that it conquered, and there were glimmers here and there that maybe something new would peek out, but it was Christendom that fostered a truly new science.
As for the wheeled plough, well, of course it seems easy to dismiss agricultural technology from our standpoint of post-industrial snobbery, but the truth is that Medieval farming developments were quite radical and, as a fortunate consequence, provided space for the university to exist. But the significance of developments in the production and use of power -- water, coal, wind -- is already clear to we moderns, who are so desperately seeking for "alternate energy sources." Presumably in today's age of nifty iPhones, with digital clocks and GPS systems, we can see how significant mechanical clocks and magnetic compasses would be.
You don't seem to have offered counterpoints to any of the cultural advancements I mentioned. Did the Muslims provide protection, dignity, and even privilege for women? Was slavery virtually extinct under Muslim rule? Who came up with free hospitals for the poor in major municipalities? Did Islam institute the "Peace of God" or "Truce of God," drastically limiting the scope of war?
It looks like one issue slipped through the cracks: Whether Christianity fundamentally spread due to Roman military force or whether it had already spread by the time Rome's armies could have been conscripted to the cause. And I've included the first quote below in this post because it didn't fit with the topics of the other two posts.
SlackerBabbath wrote Ahh, that'd be because you're assuming that because I'm an 'evil' atheist, then I must assume that all Christianity is bad.
I couldn't care less about whether you're an atheist. As I said before, I barely even think in terms of "atheism" because it's so irrelevant to my world. Instead, I've read your blog and you stated this explicitly.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 9th, 2009 at 5:16am : I said that maybe that wasn't his original plan, but that's the way it turned out.
So, in other words, it's irrelevant to the main point of this conversation: Why the Crusades got started?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 9th, 2009 at 5:16am : Grasping at straws? I'm simply showing you the evidence, I'm not saying it's 'proof' of anything, but it definately suggests that by giving Roger I powers that would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, then Urban was probably thinking about expanding into the Byzantine Empire.
Pretty much every successful ruler in history has thought about expanding the power and influence of the institution he rules, so your conclusion here is basically tautological. The issue is not whether on some particular occasion Urban did something that would expand the Roman Church's power and influence, but whether that was at the heart of the reason he started the Crusades in the first place. Four of Urban's letters on crusading remain, and they do not imply such a motive for the Crusade.
It looks like one issue slipped through the cracks: Whether Christianity fundamentally spread due to Roman military force or whether it had already spread by the time Rome's armies could have been conscripted to the cause. And I've included the first quote below in this post because it didn't fit with the topics of the other two posts.
SlackerBabbath wrote Ahh, that'd be because you're assuming that because I'm an 'evil' atheist, then I must assume that all Christianity is bad.
I couldn't care less about whether you're an atheist. As I said before, I barely even think in terms of "atheism" because it's so irrelevant to my world. Instead, I've read your blog and you stated this explicitly.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 9th, 2009 at 5:16am : I said that maybe that wasn't his original plan, but that's the way it turned out.
So, in other words, it's irrelevant to the main point of this conversation: Why the Crusades got started?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 9th, 2009 at 5:16am : Grasping at straws? I'm simply showing you the evidence, I'm not saying it's 'proof' of anything, but it definately suggests that by giving Roger I powers that would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, then Urban was probably thinking about expanding into the Byzantine Empire.
Pretty much every successful ruler in history has thought about expanding the power and influence of the institution he rules, so your conclusion here is basically tautological. The issue is not whether on some particular occasion Urban did something that would expand the Roman Church's power and influence, but whether that was at the heart of the reason he started the Crusades in the first place. Four of Urban's letters on crusading remain, and they do not imply such a motive for the Crusade.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am : Of course violence can exist in a peace loving, enlightened culture, because PEOPLE are violent. But surely systemic and large-scale violence would be minimal and quashed quickly.
Within Muslim society, yes, I have no doubt that violence was quashed, but in the Muslim military, probably not.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am :
This really isn't doing justice to the context of what I've said. Earlier in this sentence you've quoted so many times I said, "in its better moments." Similarly I can say that, in his better moments, George W. Bush was quite a popular president. It doesn't mean that that's the end of the story.
What have I said happened? I've said that Muslim violence occasioned the call for the Crusade. I've said that the people who got the ball rolling were, on the whole, relatively well-intentioned. But when you hand out open invitations for war, people who are brutal and bloodthirsty will come from far and wide to get a piece of the action. And this is exactly what happened. Worse, because they were involved in a Holy War they became more emboldened to realize their potential for atrocity.
If this is what I'm saying, you're not contradicting me. You're saying that, once the ball got rolling, terrible men did terrible things. And that's exactly what I've said. The relevant issue is how that ball got rolling. You've characterized that beginning as warmongering Christians against peace loving, enlightened Muslims, but I've argued against that. As I've pointed out, the occasion for the call to the Crusade was Muslim violence. The Seljuks had reclaimed Anatolia and were in striking distance of Constantinople.
You respond that this is political, not religious violence. They wouldn't have recognized that distinction, but even if they had it wouldn't help because there was also plenty of religious and cultural violence. The second half of the original justification for the Crusade was the increasing tide of violence against Christian pilgrims; surely a truly religiously tolerant people wouldn't be increasingly persecuting foreigners who were simply visiting on a peaceful religious pilgrimage?
Can you give me an example of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims at the time, because all I can seem to find is that the Seljuk Turks closed Christian pilgrimages before going head to head with the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am :
Likewise, the Seljuk rule of Palestine was a period of murder, destruction, economic oppression, etc. It was quite nasty.
So regardless of what was true at its better moments, in its worse moments Islam was not at root a peace loving, enlightened people.
No, in it's worse moments, Islam attracted people who were not peace loving, enlightened people, just like Christianity did during the Crusades, but at it's root, Islam was a peaceful religion, just like Christianity. Just because Urban wasn't a peace loving pope, that doesn't mean that Christianity wasn't a peaceful religion at it's root.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am : It seemed to me that you didn't have a consistent writing style so I googled a few of these sentences, and it turns out that they're all cut and pasted out of Wikipedia. The problem with cut and pasting out of Wikipedia is that it misses the context of the discussion (well, and its uneven credibility). Everything you're talking about happened at least half a century after the beginning of the Crusades, some more than a century, so is entirely irrelevant to the issue of why and how the Crusades began. Additionally, the Fourth Crusade was specifically condemned by the Pope, and the Albigensian Crusade began with a policy of nothing beyond theological persuasion but was elevated to violence and theft by the Cathars and their supporters.
Yes I quoted some parts from wiki, but only the bits that I already knew to save time.
And how is it irrelevent? Yes it happened about 50 years later, but then Jerusalem was invaded about 450 years after it became Islamic. Besides I was after all making a point of how barbaric the Crusaders were. This was an example of Crusader barbarity that even the the Pope condemned, so hardly irrelevent.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am : Of course violence can exist in a peace loving, enlightened culture, because PEOPLE are violent. But surely systemic and large-scale violence would be minimal and quashed quickly.
Within Muslim society, yes, I have no doubt that violence was quashed, but in the Muslim military, probably not.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am :
This really isn't doing justice to the context of what I've said. Earlier in this sentence you've quoted so many times I said, "in its better moments." Similarly I can say that, in his better moments, George W. Bush was quite a popular president. It doesn't mean that that's the end of the story.
What have I said happened? I've said that Muslim violence occasioned the call for the Crusade. I've said that the people who got the ball rolling were, on the whole, relatively well-intentioned. But when you hand out open invitations for war, people who are brutal and bloodthirsty will come from far and wide to get a piece of the action. And this is exactly what happened. Worse, because they were involved in a Holy War they became more emboldened to realize their potential for atrocity.
If this is what I'm saying, you're not contradicting me. You're saying that, once the ball got rolling, terrible men did terrible things. And that's exactly what I've said. The relevant issue is how that ball got rolling. You've characterized that beginning as warmongering Christians against peace loving, enlightened Muslims, but I've argued against that. As I've pointed out, the occasion for the call to the Crusade was Muslim violence. The Seljuks had reclaimed Anatolia and were in striking distance of Constantinople.
You respond that this is political, not religious violence. They wouldn't have recognized that distinction, but even if they had it wouldn't help because there was also plenty of religious and cultural violence. The second half of the original justification for the Crusade was the increasing tide of violence against Christian pilgrims; surely a truly religiously tolerant people wouldn't be increasingly persecuting foreigners who were simply visiting on a peaceful religious pilgrimage?
Can you give me an example of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims at the time, because all I can seem to find is that the Seljuk Turks closed Christian pilgrimages before going head to head with the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am :
Likewise, the Seljuk rule of Palestine was a period of murder, destruction, economic oppression, etc. It was quite nasty.
So regardless of what was true at its better moments, in its worse moments Islam was not at root a peace loving, enlightened people.
No, in it's worse moments, Islam attracted people who were not peace loving, enlightened people, just like Christianity did during the Crusades, but at it's root, Islam was a peaceful religion, just like Christianity. Just because Urban wasn't a peace loving pope, that doesn't mean that Christianity wasn't a peaceful religion at it's root.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:35am :
It seemed to me that you didn't have a consistent writing style so I googled a few of these sentences, and it turns out that they're all cut and pasted out of Wikipedia. The problem with cut and pasting out of Wikipedia is that it misses the context of the discussion (well, and its uneven credibility). Everything you're talking about happened at least half a century after the beginning of the Crusades, some more than a century, so is entirely irrelevant to the issue of why and how the Crusades began. Additionally, the Fourth Crusade was specifically condemned by the Pope, and the Albigensian Crusade began with a policy of nothing beyond theological persuasion but was elevated to violence and theft by the Cathars and their supporters.
Yes I quoted some parts from wiki, but only the bits that I already knew to save time.
And how is it irrelevent? Yes it happened about 50 years later, but then Jerusalem was invaded about 450 years after it became Islamic. Besides I was after all making a point of how barbaric the Crusaders were. This was an example of Crusader barbarity that even the the Pope condemned, so hardly irrelevent.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:41am : Wow, that is all copied straight from Wikipedia. I guess I could just copy from other parts of Wikipedia that you did not; after all, you said "let's compare them" but didn't copy from any sections on Christendom to do actual comparison. Instead, let's actually look at what you wrote.
Through conquest Islam had access to the thought of the Greeks, Egyptians, Eastern Christians, Persians, and Indians. Optics was one of the only areas in which late Greek science was still active, so we can't help but get a lot of optics. The Eastern Christians developed surgery, hospitals, etc., so we can't help but get a lot of medicine. With access to Greek, Babylonian, and Indian mathematics, mathematical advance was sure to follow. Experimentation and scientific method saw some development under Ibn al-Haytham and others, but also saw development under Christians like Grosseteste and Bacon; the tradition that birthed the Scientific Revolution came out of the Christian university, after all. And 'revolution' is an important word here: Islam never fundamentally thought outside the confines of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but in the 6th century John Philoponus was already preparing to overturn them; his work was lost due to Islamic conquest but after its rediscovery by Christendom almost immediately the stirrings of a revolution began.
So the truth behind this wall of cut 'n' pasted material is that yes, unquestionably, Islam was able to develop some of the traditions that it conquered, and there were glimmers here and there that maybe something new would peek out, but it was Christendom that fostered a truly new science.
As for the wheeled plough, well, of course it seems easy to dismiss agricultural technology from our standpoint of post-industrial snobbery, but the truth is that Medieval farming developments were quite radical and, as a fortunate consequence, provided space for the university to exist. But the significance of developments in the production and use of power -- water, coal, wind -- is already clear to we moderns, who are so desperately seeking for "alternate energy sources." Presumably in today's age of nifty iPhones, with digital clocks and GPS systems, we can see how significant mechanical clocks and magnetic compasses would be.
You don't seem to have offered counterpoints to any of the cultural advancements I mentioned. Did the Muslims provide protection, dignity, and even privilege for women? Was slavery virtually extinct under Muslim rule? Who came up with free hospitals for the poor in major municipalities? Did Islam institute the "Peace of God" or "Truce of God," drastically limiting the scope of war?
Yes it was from Wiki, but it was all correct, your personal dislike of the source doesn't make any difference if the source is correct.
The same argument you use can be applied to Christianity, a bunch of European kingdoms who were constantly battling and invading each other and adopting every advance they can get their hands on and developing it. I'm simply countering your inferance that the Muslim world were somehow backwards people who never had an original idea of their own and were dedicated to violence against Christians. Which simply isn't true.
As for cultural advancement.
Islam at the time had an emphasis on freedom of speech, did Christianity?
Islamic women were allowed to own businesses, were Christian women?
Both sides had their good and bad points, so there really isn't any point in going on about it.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:41am : Wow, that is all copied straight from Wikipedia. I guess I could just copy from other parts of Wikipedia that you did not; after all, you said "let's compare them" but didn't copy from any sections on Christendom to do actual comparison. Instead, let's actually look at what you wrote.
Through conquest Islam had access to the thought of the Greeks, Egyptians, Eastern Christians, Persians, and Indians. Optics was one of the only areas in which late Greek science was still active, so we can't help but get a lot of optics. The Eastern Christians developed surgery, hospitals, etc., so we can't help but get a lot of medicine. With access to Greek, Babylonian, and Indian mathematics, mathematical advance was sure to follow. Experimentation and scientific method saw some development under Ibn al-Haytham and others, but also saw development under Christians like Grosseteste and Bacon; the tradition that birthed the Scientific Revolution came out of the Christian university, after all. And 'revolution' is an important word here: Islam never fundamentally thought outside the confines of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but in the 6th century John Philoponus was already preparing to overturn them; his work was lost due to Islamic conquest but after its rediscovery by Christendom almost immediately the stirrings of a revolution began.
So the truth behind this wall of cut 'n' pasted material is that yes, unquestionably, Islam was able to develop some of the traditions that it conquered, and there were glimmers here and there that maybe something new would peek out, but it was Christendom that fostered a truly new science.
As for the wheeled plough, well, of course it seems easy to dismiss agricultural technology from our standpoint of post-industrial snobbery, but the truth is that Medieval farming developments were quite radical and, as a fortunate consequence, provided space for the university to exist. But the significance of developments in the production and use of power -- water, coal, wind -- is already clear to we moderns, who are so desperately seeking for "alternate energy sources." Presumably in today's age of nifty iPhones, with digital clocks and GPS systems, we can see how significant mechanical clocks and magnetic compasses would be.
You don't seem to have offered counterpoints to any of the cultural advancements I mentioned. Did the Muslims provide protection, dignity, and even privilege for women? Was slavery virtually extinct under Muslim rule? Who came up with free hospitals for the poor in major municipalities? Did Islam institute the "Peace of God" or "Truce of God," drastically limiting the scope of war?
Yes it was from Wiki, but it was all correct, your personal dislike of the source doesn't make any difference if the source is correct.
The same argument you use can be applied to Christianity, a bunch of European kingdoms who were constantly battling and invading each other and adopting every advance they can get their hands on and developing it. I'm simply countering your inferance that the Muslim world were somehow backwards people who never had an original idea of their own and were dedicated to violence against Christians. Which simply isn't true.
As for cultural advancement.
Islam at the time had an emphasis on freedom of speech, did Christianity?
Islamic women were allowed to own businesses, were Christian women?
Both sides had their good and bad points, so there really isn't any point in going on about it.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:43am :
Pretty much every successful ruler in history has thought about expanding the power and influence of the institution he rules, so your conclusion here is basically tautological. The issue is not whether on some particular occasion Urban did something that would expand the Roman Church's power and influence, but whether that was at the heart of the reason he started the Crusades in the first place. Four of Urban's letters on crusading remain, and they do not imply such a motive for the Crusade.
My own personal thoughts are that yes, that was at the heart of the reason why Urban started the Crusades in the first place.
Urbans own words may not imply such a motive, but then we wouldn't really expect them to, I'm simply drawing conclusions from his actions rather than his words.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 11:43am :
Pretty much every successful ruler in history has thought about expanding the power and influence of the institution he rules, so your conclusion here is basically tautological. The issue is not whether on some particular occasion Urban did something that would expand the Roman Church's power and influence, but whether that was at the heart of the reason he started the Crusades in the first place. Four of Urban's letters on crusading remain, and they do not imply such a motive for the Crusade.
My own personal thoughts are that yes, that was at the heart of the reason why Urban started the Crusades in the first place.
Urbans own words may not imply such a motive, but then we wouldn't really expect them to, I'm simply drawing conclusions from his actions rather than his words.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 12:33pm : Can you give me an
example of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims at the time,
because all I can seem to find is that the Seljuk Turks closed
Christian pilgrimages before going head to head with the Byzantines at
the Battle of Manzikert.
Urban's speeches were dominated by them, and not insincerely so.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 12:33pm :
No, in it's worse moments, Islam attracted people who were not peace
loving, enlightened people, just like Christianity did during the
Crusades, but at it's root, Islam was a peaceful religion, just like
Christianity.
What I've been talking about is a clash between civilizations, the
reason that the Crusades got started in the first place. If, then,
when you use the word "Islam" you completely except from it the Seljuk
aggression leading up to the First Crusade and the broad (and quite
brilliant) conquests that led to the speedy rise and dominance of the
Islamic Caliphate, conceived as a civilization and/or collection of
civilizations, then the "Islam" that you're talking about is fairly
irrelevant to my point. The issue is what the civilizations were
doing, so if your use of the word 'Islam' doesn't include the
civilizations in question then let's just use words like Seljuk and
Fatimid and Ummayyad.
The new story would then be, I suspect, that "Islam" was held captive
by the Seljuks and Fatimids, which meant that "Islam" was unfortunately
stuck in the middle of a war between its Seljuks/Fatimids captors and
late Western Frankish civilization. Even if we pin the blame on the
Seljuks as abstracted from Islam (which, again, seems like an unfitting
dichotomy here to me), the Western Frankish civilization was still
responding defensively against somebody, and that somebody
happened to be a civilization that was borne from out of the Islamic
world. So even if "Islam" was not an aggressor, an Islamic
civilization was, which means that you've shifted around some details
in the story but the base of my argument holds.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 12:33pm : Yes I quoted some
parts from wiki, but only the bits that I already knew to save time.
And how is it irrelevent? Yes it happened about 50 years later, but
then Jerusalem was invaded about 450 years after it became Islamic.
Besides I was after all making a point of how barbaric the Crusaders
were. This was an example of Crusader barbarity that even the the Pope
condemned, so hardly irrelevent.
It is irrelevant to both the grounds for the First Crusade and Urban's
intentions in the Crusade if it happened the better part of a century
(or more) afterward, and those are the two pivotal issues.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 12:33:34']Can you give me an
example of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims at the time,
because all I can seem to find is that the Seljuk Turks closed
Christian pilgrimages before going head to head with the Byzantines at
the Battle of Manzikert.[/quote]
Urban's speeches were dominated by them, and not insincerely so.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 12:33:34']
No, in it's worse moments, Islam attracted people who were not peace
loving, enlightened people, just like Christianity did during the
Crusades, but at it's root, Islam was a peaceful religion, just like
Christianity.[/quote]
What I've been talking about is a clash between civilizations, the
reason that the Crusades got started in the first place. If, then,
when you use the word "Islam" you completely except from it the Seljuk
aggression leading up to the First Crusade and the broad (and quite
brilliant) conquests that led to the speedy rise and dominance of the
Islamic Caliphate, conceived as a civilization and/or collection of
civilizations, then the "Islam" that you're talking about is fairly
irrelevant to my point. The issue is what the civilizations were
doing, so if your use of the word 'Islam' doesn't include the
civilizations in question then let's just use words like Seljuk and
Fatimid and Ummayyad.
The new story would then be, I suspect, that "Islam" was held captive
by the Seljuks and Fatimids, which meant that "Islam" was unfortunately
stuck in the middle of a war between its Seljuks/Fatimids captors and
late Western Frankish civilization. Even if we pin the blame on the
Seljuks as abstracted from Islam (which, again, seems like an unfitting
dichotomy here to me), the Western Frankish civilization was still
responding defensively against [i]somebody[/i], and that somebody
happened to be a civilization that was borne from out of the Islamic
world. So even if "Islam" was not an aggressor, an Islamic
civilization was, which means that you've shifted around some details
in the story but the base of my argument holds.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 12:33:34']Yes I quoted some
parts from wiki, but only the bits that I already knew to save time.
And how is it irrelevent? Yes it happened about 50 years later, but
then Jerusalem was invaded about 450 years after it became Islamic.
Besides I was after all making a point of how barbaric the Crusaders
were. This was an example of Crusader barbarity that even the the Pope
condemned, so hardly irrelevent.[/QUOTE]
It is irrelevant to both the grounds for the First Crusade and Urban's
intentions in the Crusade if it happened the better part of a century
(or more) afterward, and those are the two pivotal issues.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 1:00pm : The same argument you
use can be applied to Christianity, a bunch of European kingdoms who
were constantly battling and invading each other and adopting every
advance they can get their hands on and developing it.
You've said this a few times previously and I've already commented on it, to no reply.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 1:00pm : I'm simply
countering your inferance that the Muslim world were somehow backwards
people who never had an original idea of their own and were dedicated
to violence against Christians. Which simply isn't true.
I've never said anything remotely like this? I've said that the
Muslims were not a "peace-loving, enlightened people." That doesn't
mean that they were backwards or dedicated to violence against
Christians. It's not either/or.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 1:00pm : As for cultural advancement.
Islam at the time had an emphasis on freedom of speech, did Christianity?
It's not clear to me that "freedom of speech" in the abstract is a
particularly good thing. I can see how the academic freedom of
scholars is a good thing, and this certainly existed in the
university. I can also see how it can be a good thing to avoid a
totalitarian state, which Medieval society certainly did; in fact as a
civilization it was eclipsed by the rising power of the State.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 1:00pm :
Islamic women were allowed to own businesses, were Christian women?
Tax
rolls and notary records show that many women plied trades and many
open shops without need of their husbands' permission. For that matter
they even appear as having voted in many public assemblies without any
indication that this was an exceptional occurrence. Of course, we're
thinking like modern bourgeoisie if we consider this to be what really
mattered to women. They were freed from the oppression of Roman law,
considered fully as people and due fidelity by their husbands. Girls
(and female slaves) could not be prostituted by their fathers. They
could rise to education and power through monasticism, just as did
men. Some abbesses were highly regarded as feudal lords, some in
convents were respected scholars, and at times we even see convents of
men placed under the authority of women. Women were allowed full
succession to the throne, so we see powerful queens like Eleanor and
Blanche.
If we're going to have the "Islamic Golden Age" but not the "Christian Triple-Platinum Age," I'll be waiting on correlatives to the virtual extinction of slavery in Christian Europe, the "Peace of God" and "Truce of God," etc.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 1:11pm : My
own personal thoughts are that yes, that was at the heart of the reason
why Urban started the Crusades in the first place. <br>
Urbans own words may not imply such a motive, but then we wouldn't
really expect them to, I'm simply drawing conclusions from his actions
rather than his words.
In other words, all evidence from the time, including his own words,
indicates his pious ideals, but
some of the things he did would have been consistent with another set
of intentions, and you prefer the latter kinds of intentions. Surely
it strikes you as a bit dubious to read your presuppositions into
history like this?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 13:00:37']The same argument you
use can be applied to Christianity, a bunch of European kingdoms who
were constantly battling and invading each other and adopting every
advance they can get their hands on and developing it.[/quote] You've said this a few times previously and I've already commented on it, to no reply.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 13:00:37']I'm simply
countering your inferance that the Muslim world were somehow backwards
people who never had an original idea of their own and were dedicated
to violence against Christians. Which simply isn't true.[/quote]
I've never said anything remotely like this? I've said that the
Muslims were not a "peace-loving, enlightened people." That doesn't
mean that they were backwards or dedicated to violence against
Christians. It's not either/or.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 13:00:37']As for cultural advancement.
Islam at the time had an emphasis on freedom of speech, did Christianity?[/quote]
It's not clear to me that "freedom of speech" in the abstract is a
particularly good thing. I can see how the academic freedom of
scholars is a good thing, and this certainly existed in the
university. I can also see how it can be a good thing to avoid a
totalitarian state, which Medieval society certainly did; in fact as a
civilization it was eclipsed by the [i]rising[/i] power of the State.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 13:00:37']
Islamic women were allowed to own businesses, were Christian women?[/quote]
Tax
rolls and notary records show that many women plied trades and many
open shops without need of their husbands' permission. For that matter
they even appear as having voted in many public assemblies without any
indication that this was an exceptional occurrence. Of course, we're
thinking like modern bourgeoisie if we consider this to be what really
mattered to women. They were freed from the oppression of Roman law,
considered fully as people and due fidelity by their husbands. Girls
(and female slaves) could not be prostituted by their fathers. They
could rise to education and power through monasticism, just as did
men. Some abbesses were highly regarded as feudal lords, some in
convents were respected scholars, and at times we even see convents of
men placed under the authority of women. Women were allowed full
succession to the throne, so we see powerful queens like Eleanor and
Blanche.
If we're going to have the "Islamic Golden Age" but not the "Christian Triple-Platinum Age," I'll be waiting on correlatives to the virtual extinction of slavery in Christian Europe, the "Peace of God" and "Truce of God," etc.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-12 13:11:10']My
own personal thoughts are that yes, that was at the heart of the reason
why Urban started the Crusades in the first place. <br>
Urbans own words may not imply such a motive, but then we wouldn't
really expect them to, I'm simply drawing conclusions from his actions
rather than his words.[/QUOTE]
In other words, all evidence from the time, including his own words,
indicates his pious ideals, but
some of the things he did would have been consistent with another set
of intentions, and you prefer the latter kinds of intentions. Surely
it strikes you as a bit dubious to read your presuppositions into
history like this?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 12:33pm : Can you give me an example of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims at the time, because all I can seem to find is that the Seljuk Turks closed Christian pilgrimages before going head to head with the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert.
Urban's speeches were dominated by them, and not insincerely so.
Ahh, so so far we have the evidence of the person who declared war on the Muslims to justify declaring war on the Muslims.
Anything else?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 2:35pm :
What I've been talking about is a clash between civilizations, the reason that the Crusades got started in the first place. If, then, when you use the word "Islam" you completely except from it the Seljuk aggression leading up to the First Crusade and the broad (and quite brilliant) conquests that led to the speedy rise and dominance of the Islamic Caliphate, conceived as a civilization and/or collection of civilizations, then the "Islam" that you're talking about is fairly irrelevant to my point. The issue is what the civilizations were doing, so if your use of the word 'Islam' doesn't include the civilizations in question then let's just use words like Seljuk and Fatimid and Ummayyad.
The new story would then be, I suspect, that "Islam" was held captive by the Seljuks and Fatimids, which meant that "Islam" was unfortunately stuck in the middle of a war between its Seljuks/Fatimids captors and late Western Frankish civilization. Even if we pin the blame on the Seljuks as abstracted from Islam (which, again, seems like an unfitting dichotomy here to me), the Western Frankish civilization was still responding defensively against somebody, and that somebody happened to be a civilization that was borne from out of the Islamic world. So even if "Islam" was not an aggressor, an Islamic civilization was, which means that you've shifted around some details in the story but the base of my argument holds.
Yes, I'd agree in principle with that, but my main point in the whole debate was that the Crusades to Jerusalem had litte to nothing whatsoever to do with the Seljuk occupation of Anatolia.
Y'see the difference between the two is that the occupation of Anatolia was an action taken by miltary leaders who happened to be Islamic, whereas the Crusade to Jerusalem was an action ordered by the leader of western Christianity against Islam itself, which developed into action against pagans, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.
It's a bit like England declaring war on the whole of Ireland because of the actions of a few terrorists 'from' Northern Ireland, only scaled up somewhat.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 2:35pm :
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 12th, 2009 at 12:33pm : Can you give me an example of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims at the time, because all I can seem to find is that the Seljuk Turks closed Christian pilgrimages before going head to head with the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert.
Urban's speeches were dominated by them, and not insincerely so.
Ahh, so so far we have the evidence of the person who declared war on the Muslims to justify declaring war on the Muslims.
Anything else?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 2:35pm :
What I've been talking about is a clash between civilizations, the reason that the Crusades got started in the first place. If, then, when you use the word "Islam" you completely except from it the Seljuk aggression leading up to the First Crusade and the broad (and quite brilliant) conquests that led to the speedy rise and dominance of the Islamic Caliphate, conceived as a civilization and/or collection of civilizations, then the "Islam" that you're talking about is fairly irrelevant to my point. The issue is what the civilizations were doing, so if your use of the word 'Islam' doesn't include the civilizations in question then let's just use words like Seljuk and Fatimid and Ummayyad.
The new story would then be, I suspect, that "Islam" was held captive by the Seljuks and Fatimids, which meant that "Islam" was unfortunately stuck in the middle of a war between its Seljuks/Fatimids captors and late Western Frankish civilization. Even if we pin the blame on the Seljuks as abstracted from Islam (which, again, seems like an unfitting dichotomy here to me), the Western Frankish civilization was still responding defensively against somebody, and that somebody happened to be a civilization that was borne from out of the Islamic world. So even if "Islam" was not an aggressor, an Islamic civilization was, which means that you've shifted around some details in the story but the base of my argument holds.
Yes, I'd agree in principle with that, but my main point in the whole debate was that the Crusades to Jerusalem had litte to nothing whatsoever to do with the Seljuk occupation of Anatolia.
Y'see the difference between the two is that the occupation of Anatolia was an action taken by miltary leaders who happened to be Islamic, whereas the Crusade to Jerusalem was an action ordered by the leader of western Christianity against Islam itself, which developed into action against pagans, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.
It's a bit like England declaring war on the whole of Ireland because of the actions of a few terrorists 'from' Northern Ireland, only scaled up somewhat.
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 2:37pm : I've said that the Muslims were not a "peace-loving, enlightened people." That doesn't mean that they were backwards or dedicated to violence against Christians. It's not either/or.
But that is incorrect. Islam at the time was run by "peace-loving, enlightened people." the majority of it's followers were "peace-loving, enlightened people." But it's not the fault of religious leaders if miltary leaders who happen to traditionaly follow that religion decide to expand a political empire. The Seljuq leaders were dynastic, a series of sultans, and the particular sultan that invaded Anatolia, Alp Arslan, although he was a muslim, did not invade Anatolia in the name of Islam, he did it in the name of 'empire', an empire infact that because of the religious freedom that was in place had many Jews and Christians within it as well as Muslims. Infact, it's quite inaccurate to call the Seljuq Empire 'Muslims'. The leaders were, but often not 'devout' Muslims, but the empire itself was made up of many religious denominations in the same way that the pre-Constantine Roman Empire had leaders who worshipped the Roman Gods but the Roman Empire itself was a very mixed bag of different religions.
But it's interesting how the taking of Anatolia actualy came about. In 1068, Alp Arslan Oush invaded the Byzantine Empire. Fair enough, that was the first act of aggression. The Emperor Romanos IV assumed personal command and met the invaders in Cilicia. In 1070 the Seljuqs were soundly beaten into retreat and driven back towards their own territories. Romanos then raised 40,000 men, which included lots of western mercinaries, and Cuman mercinaries (who were a nomadic Turkic people) and went after them. At Manzikert the two sides met again and the sultan proposed terms of peace, which were rejected by the emperor. The two forces met in the Battle of Manzikert, but the Cuman mercenaries among the Byzantine forces defected to the Seljuqs side. Seeing this, the Western mercinaries rode off, leaving the Byzantines to their fate of a crushing defeat by the Sultan's forces.
So if Romanos had actualy decided to talk terms of peace when the offer was made, the whole battle, Romanos' defeat and the subsequent calling for help from the west that ignited the Crusades could have been avoided, but because he insisted on trying to totaly crush an already defeated and retreating enemy, he ironicaly ended up being defeated himself.
He was actualy captured and taken before Alp Arslan where this famous conversation took place. Alp Arslan asked "What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?" Romanos replied, "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople." to which Alp Arslan countered "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 2:37pm : In other words, all evidence from the time, including his own words, indicates his pious ideals, but some of the things he did would have been consistent with another set of intentions, and you prefer the latter kinds of intentions. Surely it strikes you as a bit dubious to read your presuppositions into history like this?
Ever heard the saying 'actions speak louder than words.'?
Let's say you are a Judge in a court of law and someone was up in front of you on charges of theft. (or any other crime) All the evidence says he did it but he himself says he didn't, which side of the argument do you lean towards?
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 2:37pm : I've said that the Muslims were not a "peace-loving, enlightened people." That doesn't mean that they were backwards or dedicated to violence against Christians. It's not either/or.
But that is incorrect. Islam at the time was run by "peace-loving, enlightened people." the majority of it's followers were "peace-loving, enlightened people." But it's not the fault of religious leaders if miltary leaders who happen to traditionaly follow that religion decide to expand a political empire. The Seljuq leaders were dynastic, a series of sultans, and the particular sultan that invaded Anatolia, Alp Arslan, although he was a muslim, did not invade Anatolia in the name of Islam, he did it in the name of 'empire', an empire infact that because of the religious freedom that was in place had many Jews and Christians within it as well as Muslims. Infact, it's quite inaccurate to call the Seljuq Empire 'Muslims'. The leaders were, but often not 'devout' Muslims, but the empire itself was made up of many religious denominations in the same way that the pre-Constantine Roman Empire had leaders who worshipped the Roman Gods but the Roman Empire itself was a very mixed bag of different religions.
But it's interesting how the taking of Anatolia actualy came about. In 1068, Alp Arslan Oush invaded the Byzantine Empire. Fair enough, that was the first act of aggression. The Emperor Romanos IV assumed personal command and met the invaders in Cilicia. In 1070 the Seljuqs were soundly beaten into retreat and driven back towards their own territories. Romanos then raised 40,000 men, which included lots of western mercinaries, and Cuman mercinaries (who were a nomadic Turkic people) and went after them. At Manzikert the two sides met again and the sultan proposed terms of peace, which were rejected by the emperor. The two forces met in the Battle of Manzikert, but the Cuman mercenaries among the Byzantine forces defected to the Seljuqs side. Seeing this, the Western mercinaries rode off, leaving the Byzantines to their fate of a crushing defeat by the Sultan's forces.
So if Romanos had actualy decided to talk terms of peace when the offer was made, the whole battle, Romanos' defeat and the subsequent calling for help from the west that ignited the Crusades could have been avoided, but because he insisted on trying to totaly crush an already defeated and retreating enemy, he ironicaly ended up being defeated himself.
He was actualy captured and taken before Alp Arslan where this famous conversation took place. Alp Arslan asked "What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?" Romanos replied, "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople." to which Alp Arslan countered "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."
Stanley151 wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 2:37pm : In other words, all evidence from the time, including his own words, indicates his pious ideals, but some of the things he did would have been consistent with another set of intentions, and you prefer the latter kinds of intentions. Surely it strikes you as a bit dubious to read your presuppositions into history like this?
Ever heard the saying 'actions speak louder than words.'?
Let's say you are a Judge in a court of law and someone was up in front of you on charges of theft. (or any other crime) All the evidence says he did it but he himself says he didn't, which side of the argument do you lean towards?
If England went to war against Ireland then I'm screwed. Northern Ireland doesn't know which it wants to be (well people know, but no uniform consensus) so there would be civil war as the two sides would go against each other.
If England went to war against Ireland then I'm screwed. Northern Ireland doesn't know which it wants to be (well people know, but no uniform consensus) so there would be civil war as the two sides would go against each other.
Here's some evidence from a homosexual called jgbsmith from the 'So lets talk about GAYS!' thread (unfortunate title in my opinion, and I apologise for the swearing in it, but nontheless, the evidence is interesting)
"Homosexuality is NOT a choice.
I didn't choose to be gay. I used to hate being gay. I hated it because it caused me to be entirely alientated from and despised by 99% of my classmates for a year. An entire f**king year of my life. I was twelve years old at the time. The last thing any twelve year old wants is to go from being an average kid with friends and whatnot to being the faggot that everybody picks on."
You stated "The bible says in many places that homosexuality is a sin. Why would God say something is a sin, and then create you to be just that. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, just like all sin. A true Christian doesn't hate gay people, just as God doesn't hate them. We hate the sin."
That is indeed a conundrum, which can only lead us to assume that the Bible is wrong.
The abundant evidence from homosexuals themselves would seem to go against your argument because they don't see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice but simply as the way they were born (personaly as I'm not homosexual myself, I can only take their word for it) Not only that but there are many examples of homosexuality existing in the natural world amongst animals who are thought to only have sex for instinctual reasons, meaning that their sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Look at it this way, if everything is indeed part of God's plan, then the evidence says that part of that plan is homosexuality, and if God created people and animals to be naturaly homosexual then that would be evidence that what the Bible attributes God as saying on the subject is wrong.
Here's some evidence from a homosexual called jgbsmith from the 'So lets talk about GAYS!' thread (unfortunate title in my opinion, and I apologise for the swearing in it, but nontheless, the evidence is interesting)
"Homosexuality is NOT a choice.
I didn't choose to be gay. I used to hate being gay. I hated it because it caused me to be entirely alientated from and despised by 99% of my classmates for a year. An entire f**king year of my life. I was twelve years old at the time. The last thing any twelve year old wants is to go from being an average kid with friends and whatnot to being the faggot that everybody picks on."
You stated "The bible says in many places that homosexuality is a sin. Why would God say something is a sin, and then create you to be just that. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, just like all sin. A true Christian doesn't hate gay people, just as God doesn't hate them. We hate the sin."
That is indeed a conundrum, which can only lead us to assume that the Bible is wrong.
The abundant evidence from homosexuals themselves would seem to go against your argument because they don't see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice but simply as the way they were born (personaly as I'm not homosexual myself, I can only take their word for it) Not only that but there are many examples of homosexuality existing in the natural world amongst animals who are thought to only have sex for instinctual reasons, meaning that their sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Look at it this way, if everything is indeed part of God's plan, then the evidence says that part of that plan is homosexuality, and if God created people and animals to be naturaly homosexual then that would be evidence that what the Bible attributes God as saying on the subject is wrong.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 2nd, 2009 at 5:52am : That is indeed a conundrum, which can only lead us to assume that the Bible is wrong.
Us? Call me old fashioned, but I believe that every word of the Bible is God inspired. Therefore making every word true. I'm guessing that you already knew that though. I doubt that either of us is going to change the other's mind on this subject. So we're going to have to agree to disagree. Thank you for bringing the gay animals to my attention though. I think I'll bring that up at my next Bible study. "Ban the queer monkeys." Now there's a cause I could get behind, (poor choice of words there).
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-02 05:52:42']That is indeed a conundrum, which can only lead us to assume that the Bible is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Us? Call me old fashioned, but I believe that every word of the Bible is God inspired. Therefore making every word true. I'm guessing that you already knew that though. I doubt that either of us is going to change the other's mind on this subject. So we're going to have to agree to disagree. Thank you for bringing the gay animals to my attention though. I think I'll bring that up at my next Bible study. "Ban the queer monkeys." Now there's a cause I could get behind, (poor choice of words there).
Well it's hard to see how a book that has several conflicting views in it can be viewed in that way. Take the 'Census of Quirinius' question for instance, One Gospel states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, another that he he was born during the Census of Quirinius, yet the Census didn't take place until at least 10 years after Herod's death.
They can't both be right, so it can't really be claimed that every word of the Bible is 'true'.
But I can appreciate that we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
Well it's hard to see how a book that has several conflicting views in it can be viewed in that way. Take the 'Census of Quirinius' question for instance, One Gospel states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, another that he he was born during the Census of Quirinius, yet the Census didn't take place until at least 10 years after Herod's death.
They can't both be right, so it can't really be claimed that every word of the Bible is 'true'.
But I can appreciate that we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 2nd, 2009 at 5:52am : Here's some evidence from a homosexual called jgbsmith from the 'So lets talk about GAYS!' thread (unfortunate title in my opinion, and I apologise for the swearing in it, but nontheless, the evidence is interesting)
"Homosexuality is NOT a choice.
I didn't choose to be gay. I used to hate being gay. I hated it because it caused me to be entirely alientated from and despised by 99% of my classmates for a year. An entire f**king year of my life. I was twelve years old at the time. The last thing any twelve year old wants is to go from being an average kid with friends and whatnot to being the faggot that everybody picks on."
You stated "The bible says in many places that homosexuality is a sin. Why would God say something is a sin, and then create you to be just that. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, just like all sin. A true Christian doesn't hate gay people, just as God doesn't hate them. We hate the sin."
That is indeed a conundrum, which can only lead us to assume that the Bible is wrong.
The abundant evidence from homosexuals themselves would seem to go against your argument because they don't see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice but simply as the way they were born (personaly as I'm not homosexual myself, I can only take their word for it) Not only that but there are many examples of homosexuality existing in the natural world amongst animals who are thought to only have sex for instinctual reasons, meaning that their sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Look at it this way, if everything is indeed part of God's plan, then the evidence says that part of that plan is homosexuality, and if God created people and animals to be naturaly homosexual then that would be evidence that what the Bible attributes God as saying on the subject is wrong.
I feel that homosexuality is biological. It could be something, a burden of some sort, that one has to get over, such as a disease. Yes. I am basically saying that homosexuality, is a sort of "disease." Anyways, I saw this movie where this woman tried to act like a man for 6 months of something like that. She dressed like a guy, went to the men's restroom, etc. After a while, she had homosexual feelings
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 2nd, 2009 at 5:52am : Here's some evidence from a homosexual called jgbsmith from the 'So lets talk about GAYS!' thread (unfortunate title in my opinion, and I apologise for the swearing in it, but nontheless, the evidence is interesting)
"Homosexuality is NOT a choice.
I didn't choose to be gay. I used to hate being gay. I hated it because it caused me to be entirely alientated from and despised by 99% of my classmates for a year. An entire f**king year of my life. I was twelve years old at the time. The last thing any twelve year old wants is to go from being an average kid with friends and whatnot to being the faggot that everybody picks on."
You stated "The bible says in many places that homosexuality is a sin. Why would God say something is a sin, and then create you to be just that. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, just like all sin. A true Christian doesn't hate gay people, just as God doesn't hate them. We hate the sin."
That is indeed a conundrum, which can only lead us to assume that the Bible is wrong.
The abundant evidence from homosexuals themselves would seem to go against your argument because they don't see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice but simply as the way they were born (personaly as I'm not homosexual myself, I can only take their word for it) Not only that but there are many examples of homosexuality existing in the natural world amongst animals who are thought to only have sex for instinctual reasons, meaning that their sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Look at it this way, if everything is indeed part of God's plan, then the evidence says that part of that plan is homosexuality, and if God created people and animals to be naturaly homosexual then that would be evidence that what the Bible attributes God as saying on the subject is wrong.
I feel that homosexuality is biological. It could be something, a burden of some sort, that one has to get over, such as a disease. Yes. I am basically saying that homosexuality, is a sort of "disease." Anyways, I saw this movie where this woman tried to act like a man for 6 months of something like that. She dressed like a guy, went to the men's restroom, etc. After a while, she had homosexual feelings
If it's a 'disease', something that people can catch like a cold, then it's the only disease that causes people to completely change their natural instincts. Personaly I think it is more likely to be genetic, meaning that homosexual people are 'born' homosexual.
If it's a 'disease', something that people can catch like a cold, then it's the only disease that causes people to completely change their natural instincts. Personaly I think it is more likely to be genetic, meaning that homosexual people are 'born' homosexual.
OK, interesting thing about homosexuality: we can actually genetically induce it in flies, and other species of animals (i saw another study recently, but i forgot what animals they used). The experiment with making flies is a fairly famous one, and is very interesting stuff.
However, despite this study that shows a very specific connection between homosexuality and genes in flies, humans are not nearly as simple. So far, homosexuality does not seem to be a purely genetic thing in humans because there don't seem to be any definite trends in families that we can follow. However, due to the genetic factor in other species, we have to assume that there is also a genetic factor in humans, but there seems to be A LOT of other factors that seem to influence it as well. On that note, psychologists have not found any definite contributing factors to homosexuality last time i checked. They've done behavioral studies, cognitive studies, and all sorts of things. Nothing.
One thing that scientists have noticed is that homosexuals tend to have significantly different brain structures than heterosexuals. Now, by significantly different, i don' mean that they have a radically different structures than heterosexuals, but that they have differences in their brain that are definitely noticeable.
That is to say, from a scientific standpoint, homosexuality doesn't seem to be as much of a choice as we Christians tend to try to make it. Like the guy in Slacker's post said, who really would choose to make their life a living hell, and especially in the west, knowingly choose to basically excommunicate themselves from the religions that they were brought up in? One would have to be clinically insane to do that, and yet these people seem to be pretty darn normal.
So there's a basic (although poor) over view of the science i know. Have fun.
Since i have time, i'll actually post.
OK, interesting thing about homosexuality: we can actually genetically induce it in flies, and other species of animals (i saw another study recently, but i forgot what animals they used). The experiment with making flies is a fairly famous one, and is very interesting stuff.
However, despite this study that shows a very specific connection between homosexuality and genes in flies, humans are not nearly as simple. So far, homosexuality does not seem to be a purely genetic thing in humans because there don't seem to be any definite trends in families that we can follow. However, due to the genetic factor in other species, we have to assume that there is also a genetic factor in humans, but there seems to be A LOT of other factors that seem to influence it as well. On that note, psychologists have not found any definite contributing factors to homosexuality last time i checked. They've done behavioral studies, cognitive studies, and all sorts of things. Nothing.
One thing that scientists have noticed is that homosexuals tend to have significantly different brain structures than heterosexuals. Now, by significantly different, i don' mean that they have a radically different structures than heterosexuals, but that they have differences in their brain that are definitely noticeable.
That is to say, from a scientific standpoint, homosexuality doesn't seem to be as much of a choice as we Christians tend to try to make it. Like the guy in Slacker's post said, who really would choose to make their life a living hell, and especially in the west, knowingly choose to basically excommunicate themselves from the religions that they were brought up in? One would have to be clinically insane to do that, and yet these people seem to be pretty darn normal.
So there's a basic (although poor) over view of the science i know. Have fun.
Of course when we say 'genetic' that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'hereditary', it may simply be an often occuring genetic mutation. And, think about it for a moment, there are very few homosexuals who pro-create so it must be pretty hard to determine if, once such a mutation is in place, it could actualy become hereditary, especially when we add the stigma attached to homosexuality, there may actualy be plenty of evidence out there that homosexuality is geneticaly hereditary, but we'd only know about it if (a) the people in question agreed to enter into a study program and (b) if they were completely honest about their sexual feelings.
Good post maniac.
Of course when we say 'genetic' that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'hereditary', it may simply be an often occuring genetic mutation. And, think about it for a moment, there are very few homosexuals who pro-create so it must be pretty hard to determine if, once such a mutation is in place, it could actualy become hereditary, especially when we add the stigma attached to homosexuality, there may actualy be plenty of evidence out there that homosexuality is geneticaly hereditary, but we'd only know about it if (a) the people in question agreed to enter into a study program and (b) if they were completely honest about their sexual feelings.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 5:28am : If it's a 'disease', something that people can catch like a cold, then it's the only disease that causes people to completely change their natural instincts. Personaly I think it is more likely to be genetic, meaning that homosexual people are 'born' homosexual.
I couldn't think of the right words. I meant that you are born with it. Disease is a wrong word, but I can't really think of one. Maybe like a condition I guess.
Is nobody addressing the fact that some people are not homosexual by choice but by how they live and who they surround themselves with? Like that woman I mentioned earlier. She felt an attraction to the same sex after pretending to be a male for so long. She developed homosexuality. Of course, after the experiment, she went back to normal, but that's not to say that those who develop homosexuality don't stay homosexual. I'm pretty sure some people who were not born homosexual turn homosexual for the rest of their lives.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 5:28am : If it's a 'disease', something that people can catch like a cold, then it's the only disease that causes people to completely change their natural instincts. Personaly I think it is more likely to be genetic, meaning that homosexual people are 'born' homosexual.
I couldn't think of the right words. I meant that you are born with it. Disease is a wrong word, but I can't really think of one. Maybe like a condition I guess.
Is nobody addressing the fact that some people are not homosexual by choice but by how they live and who they surround themselves with? Like that woman I mentioned earlier. She felt an attraction to the same sex after pretending to be a male for so long. She developed homosexuality. Of course, after the experiment, she went back to normal, but that's not to say that those who develop homosexuality don't stay homosexual. I'm pretty sure some people who were not born homosexual turn homosexual for the rest of their lives.
^That is one study, with one individual, who has primed herself to think that if she acts a certain way, that she'll change. So for all we know, she could have very well experienced a placebo effect. Basically, there are way too many things going on in her study to make any sort of casual inferences about any of her experiences. Interesting? yes. helpful in making a scientific decision? absolutely not.
The fact stands, that large amounts of research shows that we don't know what causes homosexuality, but that there is a definite genetic factor involved, which basically means that homosexuality, whether or not it is expressed, is something you're born with, and for various reasons, this gene gets activated in some people and not in others, and we don't know why that is.
^That is one study, with one individual, who has primed herself to think that if she acts a certain way, that she'll change. So for all we know, she could have very well experienced a placebo effect. Basically, there are way too many things going on in her study to make any sort of casual inferences about any of her experiences. Interesting? yes. helpful in making a scientific decision? absolutely not.
The fact stands, that large amounts of research shows that we don't know what causes homosexuality, but that there is a definite genetic factor involved, which basically means that homosexuality, whether or not it is expressed, is something you're born with, and for various reasons, this gene gets activated in some people and not in others, and we don't know why that is.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 5:50pm : Good post maniac. Of course when we say 'genetic' that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'hereditary', it may simply be an often occuring genetic mutation. And, think about it for a moment, there are very few homosexuals who pro-create so it must be pretty hard to determine if, once such a mutation is in place, it could actualy become hereditary, especially when we add the stigma attached to homosexuality, there may actualy be plenty of evidence out there that homosexuality is geneticaly hereditary, but we'd only know about it if (a) the people in question agreed to enter into a study program and (b) if they were completely honest about their sexual feelings.
It could certainly be hereditary. If you consider the stigma placed upon it at least for the last 3,000 years (Thanks, Judaism), you can easily see how some people would deny their sexuality, and would instead force themselves to live as a heterosexual. You know, get married, have children, and all of that good stuff. Freedoms_stain used to have an awesome blog about this, but he's deleted all of his blogs, sadly enough. There are also bisexual people that could pass on the part of their genome that predisposes people to homosexuality.
The experiment with drosophila is a pretty interesting experiment. It does show that homosexuality is at least partially genetic. I don't think it by itself can cause someone to be gay, though. I think that it would just predispose them to it. Phenotypical expression of genotypes is also multifactorial in humans, which means that incomplete dominance/semi-dominance could lead to bisexuality.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 5:50pm : Good post maniac. Of course when we say 'genetic' that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'hereditary', it may simply be an often occuring genetic mutation. And, think about it for a moment, there are very few homosexuals who pro-create so it must be pretty hard to determine if, once such a mutation is in place, it could actualy become hereditary, especially when we add the stigma attached to homosexuality, there may actualy be plenty of evidence out there that homosexuality is geneticaly hereditary, but we'd only know about it if (a) the people in question agreed to enter into a study program and (b) if they were completely honest about their sexual feelings.
It could certainly be hereditary. If you consider the stigma placed upon it at least for the last 3,000 years (Thanks, Judaism), you can easily see how some people would deny their sexuality, and would instead force themselves to live as a heterosexual. You know, get married, have children, and all of that good stuff. Freedoms_stain used to have an awesome blog about this, but he's deleted all of his blogs, sadly enough. There are also bisexual people that could pass on the part of their genome that predisposes people to homosexuality.
The experiment with drosophila is a pretty interesting experiment. It does show that homosexuality is at least partially genetic. I don't think it by itself can cause someone to be gay, though. I think that it would just predispose them to it. Phenotypical expression of genotypes is also multifactorial in humans, which means that incomplete dominance/semi-dominance could lead to bisexuality.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Oct 7th, 2009 at 3:10pm : ^That is one study, with one individual, who has primed herself to think that if she acts a certain way, that she'll change. So for all we know, she could have very well experienced a placebo effect. Basically, there are way too many things going on in her study to make any sort of casual inferences about any of her experiences. Interesting? yes. helpful in making a scientific decision? absolutely not.
The fact stands, that large amounts of research shows that we don't know what causes homosexuality, but that there is a definite genetic factor involved, which basically means that homosexuality, whether or not it is expressed, is something you're born with, and for various reasons, this gene gets activated in some people and not in others, and we don't know why that is.
she had no idea about the homosexuality aspect of it. she was doing a social experiment to see how people would respond to her acting as a male. Nobody realized it. God I forget, it was some Korean woman. She stated that after a while, she started to become attracted to women and that she had no idea something like that could happen to a heterosexual. But I think women have a tendency to be fake homosexuals because most feel connections to individuals through emotion. They become emotionally attached to another woman and eventually can become sexually attracted. That's not to say homosexuality is inborn. I'm talking about gay people who are not born gay.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Oct 7th, 2009 at 3:10pm : ^That is one study, with one individual, who has primed herself to think that if she acts a certain way, that she'll change. So for all we know, she could have very well experienced a placebo effect. Basically, there are way too many things going on in her study to make any sort of casual inferences about any of her experiences. Interesting? yes. helpful in making a scientific decision? absolutely not.
The fact stands, that large amounts of research shows that we don't know what causes homosexuality, but that there is a definite genetic factor involved, which basically means that homosexuality, whether or not it is expressed, is something you're born with, and for various reasons, this gene gets activated in some people and not in others, and we don't know why that is.
she had no idea about the homosexuality aspect of it. she was doing a social experiment to see how people would respond to her acting as a male. Nobody realized it. God I forget, it was some Korean woman. She stated that after a while, she started to become attracted to women and that she had no idea something like that could happen to a heterosexual. But I think women have a tendency to be fake homosexuals because most feel connections to individuals through emotion. They become emotionally attached to another woman and eventually can become sexually attracted. That's not to say homosexuality is inborn. I'm talking about gay people who are not born gay.
^The fact still remains that we are talking about one study that was a descriptive, participant-observer study, and while nifty, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of possible confounding variables involved, and so to look at that book, and then say, "Well, this is how it works then!" just doesn't work.
also, we have no way of proving whether or not someone who is gay was "born that way" because we have no way of knowing how the gene is activated. It may even be that the gene is activated later in life.
Tat study does sound nifty, though, so don't think that i'm just trying to be like, "AH!! GRR YOUR WRONG!! RAWR!" I think that it's awesome that you've thought about it like this, most people don't.
On another note, isn't emotional attachment the basis of most attractions anyway? I mean, i became sexually attracted to my girlfriend after i developed an emotional attachment. That's kinda how it works. Sometimes it can be the other way around, but yea.
^The fact still remains that we are talking about one study that was a descriptive, participant-observer study, and while nifty, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of possible confounding variables involved, and so to look at that book, and then say, "Well, this is how it works then!" just doesn't work.
also, we have no way of proving whether or not someone who is gay was "born that way" because we have no way of knowing how the gene is activated. It may even be that the gene is activated later in life.
Tat study does sound nifty, though, so don't think that i'm just trying to be like, "AH!! GRR YOUR WRONG!! RAWR!" I think that it's awesome that you've thought about it like this, most people don't.
On another note, isn't emotional attachment the basis of most attractions anyway? I mean, i became sexually attracted to my girlfriend after i developed an emotional attachment. That's kinda how it works. Sometimes it can be the other way around, but yea.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Oct 8th, 2009 at 12:52pm :
On another note, isn't emotional attachment the basis of most attractions anyway? I mean, i became sexually attracted to my girlfriend after i developed an emotional attachment. That's kinda how it works. Sometimes it can be the other way around, but yea.
I should imagine it actualy happens the other way around a lot more often than just 'sometimes'.
Let's say that you see a girl for the very first time, you haven't personaly met her yet, but you've noticed her and you'd quite like to 'get to know her'. That can only be sexual attraction because you have no information yet to be able to form an emotional attraction, all the information you have on her is purely via eyesight, so it must a 'physical' attraction.
Of course, it all depends on how you meet. If you grew up together, went to school and were in the same class together since you were little, then you'd obviously get to know her emotionaly before either of you even developed sexual feelings during puberty.
Another way is that she's a collegue, or a friend of a friend, someone who hangs with your group of people. It's possible that in this situation or similar, you could have got to know her emotionaly which then caused you to become attracted to her physicaly, but usualy, there would have to be a cirtain amount of physical attractiveness already in play, even if you are not aware of it.
We are thought to be kinda naturaly hard-wired to think this way, when you find yourself attracted to someone, whether it's a physical or emotional attraction that happens first, you're body naturaly gears up for reproduction out of instinct. If you find someone physicaly attractive, it's actualy because you have assessed their physical build and arrived at a decision of whether they could help you produce healthy offspring or not, probably within nanoseconds of first seeing them.
Of course, tastes vary, but men generaly prefer women with what is known as an 'hourglass' figure. Large hips denote a wide birth canal, making giving birth an easier and less traumatic experience for both mother and child, large breasts denote a plentiful supply of sustinance for the first year or so of your offspring's life, while a slim waste denotes that even though she has wide hips and large breasts, she's not overweight and therefore unhealthy, which could either affect her ability to care for offspring or may even be a genetic trait that may be passed on to offspring.
Women tend to go for physicly strong men because this makes them a good food and shelter provider in a natural setting and also denotes a healthy gene pool, but physical attraction is not everything. When we get to 'know' someone, we are actualy checking them for any mental deficiencies that could be passed on to our offspring.
Facial beauty is also a consideration.
There are currently studies being carried out on facial beauty that seems to be suggesting that someone with a very symetrical face is generaly denoted as being 'beautiful', but what 'natural' advantage could symetrical facial beauty possibly have? Well some scientists are starting to suspect that it actualy denotes a 'wide', and therefore, 'healthy' gene pool. People of mixed race for instance seem to very often be classed as 'good looking', while people who have a 'smaller' gene don't tend to be 'as' good looking. Of course, there are exeptions, but this is the general correlation that the studies have found so far.
But remember, we are an 'intelligent' social species. Our evolution has taken an interesting path where intelligence has become the major evolutionary advantage. We may not be as strong as our ancestral species, but because of our intelligence we can fashion weapons that give us advantages over predators or prey, we may not be as hairy as our ancestral species, but thanks to our intelligence, we can fashion clothing and make fire to keep us warm.
So idealy, a viable mate would be someone who is physicaly healthy with symetrical facial beauty and a decent standard of intelligence, but because intelligence has become the major evolutionary factor, then intelligence is generaly classed as the most important factor when selecting a mate and the reading of a person's intelligence can only happen when we get to know them, thus forming an emotional attachment.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Oct 8th, 2009 at 12:52pm :
On another note, isn't emotional attachment the basis of most attractions anyway? I mean, i became sexually attracted to my girlfriend after i developed an emotional attachment. That's kinda how it works. Sometimes it can be the other way around, but yea.
I should imagine it actualy happens the other way around a lot more often than just 'sometimes'.
Let's say that you see a girl for the very first time, you haven't personaly met her yet, but you've noticed her and you'd quite like to 'get to know her'. That can only be sexual attraction because you have no information yet to be able to form an emotional attraction, all the information you have on her is purely via eyesight, so it must a 'physical' attraction.
Of course, it all depends on how you meet. If you grew up together, went to school and were in the same class together since you were little, then you'd obviously get to know her emotionaly before either of you even developed sexual feelings during puberty.
Another way is that she's a collegue, or a friend of a friend, someone who hangs with your group of people. It's possible that in this situation or similar, you could have got to know her emotionaly which then caused you to become attracted to her physicaly, but usualy, there would have to be a cirtain amount of physical attractiveness already in play, even if you are not aware of it.
We are thought to be kinda naturaly hard-wired to think this way, when you find yourself attracted to someone, whether it's a physical or emotional attraction that happens first, you're body naturaly gears up for reproduction out of instinct. If you find someone physicaly attractive, it's actualy because you have assessed their physical build and arrived at a decision of whether they could help you produce healthy offspring or not, probably within nanoseconds of first seeing them.
Of course, tastes vary, but men generaly prefer women with what is known as an 'hourglass' figure. Large hips denote a wide birth canal, making giving birth an easier and less traumatic experience for both mother and child, large breasts denote a plentiful supply of sustinance for the first year or so of your offspring's life, while a slim waste denotes that even though she has wide hips and large breasts, she's not overweight and therefore unhealthy, which could either affect her ability to care for offspring or may even be a genetic trait that may be passed on to offspring.
Women tend to go for physicly strong men because this makes them a good food and shelter provider in a natural setting and also denotes a healthy gene pool, but physical attraction is not everything. When we get to 'know' someone, we are actualy checking them for any mental deficiencies that could be passed on to our offspring.
Facial beauty is also a consideration.
There are currently studies being carried out on facial beauty that seems to be suggesting that someone with a very symetrical face is generaly denoted as being 'beautiful', but what 'natural' advantage could symetrical facial beauty possibly have? Well some scientists are starting to suspect that it actualy denotes a 'wide', and therefore, 'healthy' gene pool. People of mixed race for instance seem to very often be classed as 'good looking', while people who have a 'smaller' gene don't tend to be 'as' good looking. Of course, there are exeptions, but this is the general correlation that the studies have found so far.
But remember, we are an 'intelligent' social species. Our evolution has taken an interesting path where intelligence has become the major evolutionary advantage. We may not be as strong as our ancestral species, but because of our intelligence we can fashion weapons that give us advantages over predators or prey, we may not be as hairy as our ancestral species, but thanks to our intelligence, we can fashion clothing and make fire to keep us warm.
So idealy, a viable mate would be someone who is physicaly healthy with symetrical facial beauty and a decent standard of intelligence, but because intelligence has become the major evolutionary factor, then intelligence is generaly classed as the most important factor when selecting a mate and the reading of a person's intelligence can only happen when we get to know them, thus forming an emotional attachment.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 20th, 2009 at 6:08am : Ahh, so so far we have the evidence of the person who declared war on the Muslims to justify declaring war on the Muslims.
Anything else?
Well, we're asking the nature of his intentions, so obviously his express statements would be relevant. Again, he would have little reason to hide his intentions. The monastic tradition that built into Urban had been expressing the same ideas for decades.
In all his extant writings and records of his speeches, the goal is stated to be reconquest. He could easily have said that the Muslims were evil and had to be wiped off the map, but he didn't. He didn't press for, say, Mecca. He pressed for reconquest.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 20th, 2009 at 6:08am : Yes, I'd agree in principle with that, but my main point in the whole debate was that the Crusades to Jerusalem had litte to nothing whatsoever to do with the Seljuk occupation of Anatolia.
Except that it was the occasion for the whole thing. The basic idea was this: A few centuries before, Islam launched a major campaign which included claiming a large portion of Christendom. During the intervening time, there had been fighting back-and-forth in these contested areas. Finally, the last straw: The East calls for military aid against the Seljuks. Gregory is unable to muster much help, but Urban manages to organize a massive campaign in response to this call for aid. Quickly he sees that Christendom has the military and economic power to reclaim those conquered lands from Islam, so Urban expands the Crusade to Spain and several islands.
Anatolia is then central because it is the occasioning conflict. The East asks the West for defensive aid and this starts it all.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 20th, 2009 at 6:08am : Y'see the difference between the two is that the occupation of Anatolia was an action taken by miltary leaders who happened to be Islamic, whereas the Crusade to Jerusalem was an action ordered by the leader of western Christianity against Islam itself, which developed into action against pagans, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.
It's a bit like England declaring war on the whole of Ireland because of the actions of a few terrorists 'from' Northern Ireland, only scaled up somewhat.
If Ireland had also conquered Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, and these "few" terrorists were the armies of the country, and England stopped at Belfast without going for Dublin, then yes.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-20 06:08:56']Ahh, so so far we have the evidence of the person who declared war on the Muslims to justify declaring war on the Muslims.
Anything else?[/quote] Well, we're asking the nature of his intentions, so obviously his express statements would be relevant. Again, he would have little reason to hide his intentions. The monastic tradition that built into Urban had been expressing the same ideas for decades.
In all his extant writings and records of his speeches, the goal is stated to be reconquest. He could easily have said that the Muslims were evil and had to be wiped off the map, but he didn't. He didn't press for, say, Mecca. He pressed for reconquest.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-20 06:08:56']Yes, I'd agree in principle with that, but my main point in the whole debate was that the Crusades to Jerusalem had litte to nothing whatsoever to do with the Seljuk occupation of Anatolia.[/quote] Except that it was the occasion for the whole thing. The basic idea was this: A few centuries before, Islam launched a major campaign which included claiming a large portion of Christendom. During the intervening time, there had been fighting back-and-forth in these contested areas. Finally, the last straw: The East calls for military aid against the Seljuks. Gregory is unable to muster much help, but Urban manages to organize a massive campaign in response to this call for aid. Quickly he sees that Christendom has the military and economic power to reclaim those conquered lands from Islam, so Urban expands the Crusade to Spain and several islands.
Anatolia is then central because it is the occasioning conflict. The East asks the West for defensive aid and this starts it all.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-20 06:08:56']Y'see the difference between the two is that the occupation of Anatolia was an action taken by miltary leaders who happened to be Islamic, whereas the Crusade to Jerusalem was an action ordered by the leader of western Christianity against Islam itself, which developed into action against pagans, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.
It's a bit like England declaring war on the whole of Ireland because of the actions of a few terrorists 'from' Northern Ireland, only scaled up somewhat.[/QUOTE] If Ireland had also conquered Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, and these "few" terrorists were the armies of the country, and England stopped at Belfast without going for Dublin, then yes.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 20th, 2009 at 7:38am : But that is incorrect. Islam at the time was run by "peace-loving, enlightened people." the majority of it's followers were "peace-loving, enlightened people." But it's not the fault of religious leaders if miltary leaders who happen to traditionaly follow that religion decide to expand a political empire. The Seljuq leaders were dynastic, a series of sultans, and the particular sultan that invaded Anatolia, Alp Arslan, although he was a muslim, did not invade Anatolia in the name of Islam, he did it in the name of 'empire', an empire infact that because of the religious freedom that was in place had many Jews and Christians within it as well as Muslims. Infact, it's quite inaccurate to call the Seljuq Empire 'Muslims'. The leaders were, but often not 'devout' Muslims, but the empire itself was made up of many religious denominations in the same way that the pre-Constantine Roman Empire had leaders who worshipped the Roman Gods but the Roman Empire itself was a very mixed bag of different religions.
Elsewhere I've pointed out that sure, that's fine, but it's irrelevant.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 20th, 2009 at 7:38am : But it's interesting how the taking of Anatolia actualy came about. In 1068, Alp Arslan Oush invaded the Byzantine Empire. Fair enough, that was the first act of aggression. The Emperor Romanos IV assumed personal command and met the invaders in Cilicia. In 1070 the Seljuqs were soundly beaten into retreat and driven back towards their own territories. Romanos then raised 40,000 men, which included lots of western mercinaries, and Cuman mercinaries (who were a nomadic Turkic people) and went after them. At Manzikert the two sides met again and the sultan proposed terms of peace, which were rejected by the emperor. The two forces met in the Battle of Manzikert, but the Cuman mercenaries among the Byzantine forces defected to the Seljuqs side. Seeing this, the Western mercinaries rode off, leaving the Byzantines to their fate of a crushing defeat by the Sultan's forces.
So if Romanos had actualy decided to talk terms of peace when the offer was made, the whole battle, Romanos' defeat and the subsequent calling for help from the west that ignited the Crusades could have been avoided, but because he insisted on trying to totaly crush an already defeated and retreating enemy, he ironicaly ended up being defeated himself.
He was actualy captured and taken before Alp Arslan where this famous conversation took place. Alp Arslan asked "What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?" Romanos replied, "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople." to which Alp Arslan countered "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."
Of course, the sultan had also rejected Romanos's previous offer of peace. Whatever the case, we're talking about a conquered Anatolia, and we're talking about Seljuk armies in striking distance of Constantinople.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Sep 20th, 2009 at 7:38am : Ever heard the saying 'actions speak louder than words.'?
Let's say you are a Judge in a court of law and someone was up in front of you on charges of theft. (or any other crime) All the evidence says he did it but he himself says he didn't, which side of the argument do you lean towards?
Except that in our case the evidence doesn't indicate your interpretation. Urban claimed he was fighting a war of defensive aid and reconquest. Commentators, of his time and ours, believe he was sincere. He responded to a call for defensive aid. He aimed at the reconquest of lands which Christendom had previously been unable to reclaim from the Muslims. He did not press for Mecca or even Cairo but for Jerusalem. You've given no reason to think he would have even wanted to hide his intentions, much less any reason to think he did.
The only piece of evidence you have offered so far is that he gave ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble in Sicily -- even conspiracy theories have more support behind them than this. There is reading in between the lines, and there is reading your precommitments into the facts. So far there is no reason to believe anything but the latter.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-20 07:38:32']But that is incorrect. Islam at the time was run by "peace-loving, enlightened people." the majority of it's followers were "peace-loving, enlightened people." But it's not the fault of religious leaders if miltary leaders who happen to traditionaly follow that religion decide to expand a political empire. The Seljuq leaders were dynastic, a series of sultans, and the particular sultan that invaded Anatolia, Alp Arslan, although he was a muslim, did not invade Anatolia in the name of Islam, he did it in the name of 'empire', an empire infact that because of the religious freedom that was in place had many Jews and Christians within it as well as Muslims. Infact, it's quite inaccurate to call the Seljuq Empire 'Muslims'. The leaders were, but often not 'devout' Muslims, but the empire itself was made up of many religious denominations in the same way that the pre-Constantine Roman Empire had leaders who worshipped the Roman Gods but the Roman Empire itself was a very mixed bag of different religions.[/quote] Elsewhere I've pointed out that sure, that's fine, but it's irrelevant.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-20 07:38:32']But it's interesting how the taking of Anatolia actualy came about. In 1068, Alp Arslan Oush invaded the Byzantine Empire. Fair enough, that was the first act of aggression. The Emperor Romanos IV assumed personal command and met the invaders in Cilicia. In 1070 the Seljuqs were soundly beaten into retreat and driven back towards their own territories. Romanos then raised 40,000 men, which included lots of western mercinaries, and Cuman mercinaries (who were a nomadic Turkic people) and went after them. At Manzikert the two sides met again and the sultan proposed terms of peace, which were rejected by the emperor. The two forces met in the Battle of Manzikert, but the Cuman mercenaries among the Byzantine forces defected to the Seljuqs side. Seeing this, the Western mercinaries rode off, leaving the Byzantines to their fate of a crushing defeat by the Sultan's forces.
So if Romanos had actualy decided to talk terms of peace when the offer was made, the whole battle, Romanos' defeat and the subsequent calling for help from the west that ignited the Crusades could have been avoided, but because he insisted on trying to totaly crush an already defeated and retreating enemy, he ironicaly ended up being defeated himself.
He was actualy captured and taken before Alp Arslan where this famous conversation took place. Alp Arslan asked "What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?" Romanos replied, "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople." to which Alp Arslan countered "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."[/quote] Of course, the sultan had also rejected Romanos's previous offer of peace. Whatever the case, we're talking about a conquered Anatolia, and we're talking about Seljuk armies in striking distance of Constantinople.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-09-20 07:38:32']Ever heard the saying 'actions speak louder than words.'?
Let's say you are a Judge in a court of law and someone was up in front of you on charges of theft. (or any other crime) All the evidence says he did it but he himself says he didn't, which side of the argument do you lean towards?[/QUOTE] Except that in our case the evidence doesn't indicate your interpretation. Urban claimed he was fighting a war of defensive aid and reconquest. Commentators, of his time and ours, believe he was sincere. He responded to a call for defensive aid. He aimed at the reconquest of lands which Christendom had previously been unable to reclaim from the Muslims. He did not press for Mecca or even Cairo but for Jerusalem. You've given no reason to think he would have even wanted to hide his intentions, much less any reason to think he did.
The only piece of evidence you have offered so far is that he gave ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble in Sicily -- even conspiracy theories have more support behind them than this. There is reading in between the lines, and there is reading your precommitments into the facts. So far there is no reason to believe anything but the latter.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 2nd, 2009 at 5:52am : "Homosexuality is NOT a choice... You stated "The bible says in many places that homosexuality is a sin.
Why would God say something is a sin, and then create you to be just
that. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, just like all sin. A
true Christian doesn't hate gay people, just as God doesn't hate them.
We hate the sin."
Of course nobody sits down and thinks, "I want to be gay. I hereby choose to be gay." Well, I suppose a few people might have. By and large, though, that's not how people come to be gay. In fact, that's not how people come to be almost anything; if this removes gay sex from the realm of moral judgment then it also removes a good bit of pride, gluttony, murder, and rape from moral discourse. But perhaps it would be better if we modeled ethics after something other than liberal capitalism?
The root issue here, I suspect, is evangelicals' moralizing outside the Church. Because in individualistic pietism evangelicals view the nation-state rather than the Church as their social public, they need to moralize and judge those in the nation-state. Homosexuality is a particularly easy target for several reasons. On the one hand, because it so graphically portrays a fundamental shift in how life and culture works. On the other, because it is so easy for most people not to be gay. Like "raising awareness," then, denouncing homosexuality can make us feel like we're connected to something truly good while remaining completely lazy and useless.
Of course, you're not stuck with this if you're not plagued by individualistic pietism. As the Church we are a people called to a formed by the God who is Love, and the unitive and creative aspects of that love do not form us in the direction of modern homosexuality. We are also not formed in the direction of divorce or gluttony or promiscuity or murder, but that doesn't mean that we are without blemish. We get divorced, we rape and murder, and lie and steal. But we are, we hope, becoming people who do not do these things.
Obviously this implies, for starters, that Christians should not be people who self-righteously denounce each other, but more deeply, that most of the impetus for moralizing against those outside the Church dissipates. It is an especially uninteresting truism to say that there is evil outside the Church, particularly when there is evil inside the Church as well. We do announce God's judgment on evil, but we also announce faith, hope, and love in the proclamation of God's redemption. We needn't quibble over the helm of the nation-state when God's vision is something much broader and grander.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 2nd, 2009 at 5:52am : Look at it this way, if everything is indeed part of God's plan, then the evidence says that part of that plan is homosexuality, and if God created people and animals to be naturaly homosexual then that would be evidence that what the Bible attributes God as saying on the subject is wrong.
You're interpreting Christianity as skipping straight from Creation to Eschaton, but in between you've missed Fall and Redemption.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-02 05:52:42']"Homosexuality is NOT a choice... You stated "The bible says in many places that homosexuality is a sin.
Why would God say something is a sin, and then create you to be just
that. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, just like all sin. A
true Christian doesn't hate gay people, just as God doesn't hate them.
We hate the sin."[/quote] Of course nobody sits down and thinks, "I want to be gay. I hereby choose to be gay." Well, I suppose a few people might have. By and large, though, that's not how people come to be gay. In fact, that's not how people come to be almost anything; if this removes gay sex from the realm of moral judgment then it also removes a good bit of pride, gluttony, murder, and rape from moral discourse. But perhaps it would be better if we modeled ethics after something other than liberal capitalism?
The root issue here, I suspect, is evangelicals' moralizing outside the Church. Because in individualistic pietism evangelicals view the nation-state rather than the Church as their social public, they need to moralize and judge those in the nation-state. Homosexuality is a particularly easy target for several reasons. On the one hand, because it so graphically portrays a fundamental shift in how life and culture works. On the other, because it is so easy for most people not to be gay. Like "raising awareness," then, denouncing homosexuality can make us feel like we're connected to something truly good while remaining completely lazy and useless.
Of course, you're not stuck with this if you're not plagued by individualistic pietism. As the Church we are a people called to a formed by the God who is Love, and the unitive and creative aspects of that love do not form us in the direction of modern homosexuality. We are also not formed in the direction of divorce or gluttony or promiscuity or murder, but that doesn't mean that we are without blemish. We get divorced, we rape and murder, and lie and steal. But we are, we hope, becoming people who do not do these things.
Obviously this implies, for starters, that Christians should not be people who self-righteously denounce each other, but more deeply, that most of the impetus for moralizing against those outside the Church dissipates. It is an especially uninteresting truism to say that there is evil outside the Church, particularly when there is evil inside the Church as well. We do announce God's judgment on evil, but we also announce faith, hope, and love in the proclamation of God's redemption. We needn't quibble over the helm of the nation-state when God's vision is something much broader and grander.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-02 05:52:42']Look at it this way, if everything is indeed part of God's plan, then the evidence says that part of that plan is homosexuality, and if God created people and animals to be naturaly homosexual then that would be evidence that what the Bible attributes God as saying on the subject is wrong.[/QUOTE] You're interpreting Christianity as skipping straight from Creation to Eschaton, but in between you've missed Fall and Redemption.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 10:50am : Well, we're asking the nature of his intentions, so obviously his express statements would be relevant. Again, he would have little reason to hide his intentions. The monastic tradition that built into Urban had been expressing the same ideas for decades.
In all his extant writings and records of his speeches, the goal is stated to be reconquest. He could easily have said that the Muslims were evil and had to be wiped off the map, but he didn't. He didn't press for, say, Mecca. He pressed for reconquest.
Reconquest of what though? Urban was head of the Catholic Church. An organisation left over from the Roman Empire which covered most of the known world at the time. Reconquest of an island or a city or even a nation that has recently fallen to enemies is one thing, but Urban almost looks like he was trying to regain the whole Roman Empire.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Elsewhere I've pointed out that sure, that's fine, but it's irrelevant.
Relevant when you mention it but irrelevant when I mention it?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Of course, the sultan had also rejected Romanos's previous offer of peace.
Which previous offer was this?
It's interesting to note that Romanos did eventualy sign a treaty with Arslan. After humiliating him, Arslan then ordered him to be treated like a king. From then on Romanos was treated him with extreme kindness until he was released in exchange for a treaty and the promise of a ransom, but upon his return home he was dethroned. He collected all the money he could and sent it to Arslan with the message “As emperor, I promsed you a ransom of a million and a half. Dethroned, and about to become dependent upon others, I send you all I possess as proof of my gratitude.” So it's quite obvious that the two men had built bridges and ahd arrived at a mutual respect, but then Romanos was tortured and killed by his successors who then chose not to honour the treaty. The matter had been settled, a treaty had been signed, peace was almost assured, but the Byzantines reneged on the deal.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Whatever the case, we're talking about a conquered Anatolia, and we're talking about Seljuk armies in striking distance of Constantinople.
The same Constantinople that the Crusaders later sacked?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Except that in our case the evidence doesn't indicate your interpretation. Urban claimed he was fighting a war of defensive aid and reconquest. Commentators, of his time and ours, believe he was sincere.
Although commentators of his time and ours believed he was sincere, many other commentators of his time and ours didn't, there are two sides to every story.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 10:50am : Well, we're asking the nature of his intentions, so obviously his express statements would be relevant. Again, he would have little reason to hide his intentions. The monastic tradition that built into Urban had been expressing the same ideas for decades.
In all his extant writings and records of his speeches, the goal is stated to be reconquest. He could easily have said that the Muslims were evil and had to be wiped off the map, but he didn't. He didn't press for, say, Mecca. He pressed for reconquest.
Reconquest of what though? Urban was head of the Catholic Church. An organisation left over from the Roman Empire which covered most of the known world at the time. Reconquest of an island or a city or even a nation that has recently fallen to enemies is one thing, but Urban almost looks like he was trying to regain the whole Roman Empire.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Elsewhere I've pointed out that sure, that's fine, but it's irrelevant.
Relevant when you mention it but irrelevant when I mention it?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Of course, the sultan had also rejected Romanos's previous offer of peace.
Which previous offer was this?
It's interesting to note that Romanos did eventualy sign a treaty with Arslan. After humiliating him, Arslan then ordered him to be treated like a king. From then on Romanos was treated him with extreme kindness until he was released in exchange for a treaty and the promise of a ransom, but upon his return home he was dethroned. He collected all the money he could and sent it to Arslan with the message “As emperor, I promsed you a ransom of a million and a half. Dethroned, and about to become dependent upon others, I send you all I possess as proof of my gratitude.” So it's quite obvious that the two men had built bridges and ahd arrived at a mutual respect, but then Romanos was tortured and killed by his successors who then chose not to honour the treaty. The matter had been settled, a treaty had been signed, peace was almost assured, but the Byzantines reneged on the deal.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Whatever the case, we're talking about a conquered Anatolia, and we're talking about Seljuk armies in striking distance of Constantinople.
The same Constantinople that the Crusaders later sacked?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : Except that in our case the evidence doesn't indicate your interpretation. Urban claimed he was fighting a war of defensive aid and reconquest. Commentators, of his time and ours, believe he was sincere.
Although commentators of his time and ours believed he was sincere, many other commentators of his time and ours didn't, there are two sides to every story.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : He responded to a call for defensive aid. He aimed at the reconquest of lands which Christendom had previously been unable to reclaim from the Muslims. He did not press for Mecca or even Cairo but for Jerusalem.
Which I believe we mentioned earlier had been under Muslim rule for 400 years. That can hardly be classed as 'reconquest' after so much time. If Britain invaded America now, would that be classed as reconquest or simply an aggresive act of war?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : You've given no reason to think he would have even wanted to hide his intentions, much less any reason to think he did.
The only piece of evidence you have offered so far is that he gave ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble in Sicily -- even conspiracy theories have more support behind them than this. There is reading in between the lines, and there is reading your precommitments into the facts. So far there is no reason to believe anything but the latter.
The obvious motive for him wanting to hide his intentions is that he was Empire building, which would naturaly, if it were known to them, make every leader of every nation surrounding him nervous and possibly cause them to ally together against him.
That evidence of him gaving ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble is pretty strong evidence though, why would he do such a thing if the only thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines?
The Byzantines were going though some pretty bad political times with the dethroning of Romanos almost taking them to the verge of civil war. The whole place was politicaly quite unstable and it was an opportune moment for Urban to attempt to seize Byzantine lands for Catholicism, which, along with his granting of ecclesiastical powers to Roger that would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, makes it look very much like expansion was definately part the plan.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 12:22pm : You're interpreting Christianity as skipping straight from Creation to Eschaton, but in between you've missed Fall and Redemption.
No, I'm simply stating that even if God exists (which I don't 'believe' is the case) then if that God is pure love, it makes no sense whatsoever for him to be against the consentual love between two people of the same sex who he himself had created to be homosexual.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : He responded to a call for defensive aid. He aimed at the reconquest of lands which Christendom had previously been unable to reclaim from the Muslims. He did not press for Mecca or even Cairo but for Jerusalem.
Which I believe we mentioned earlier had been under Muslim rule for 400 years. That can hardly be classed as 'reconquest' after so much time. If Britain invaded America now, would that be classed as reconquest or simply an aggresive act of war?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 11:37am : You've given no reason to think he would have even wanted to hide his intentions, much less any reason to think he did.
The only piece of evidence you have offered so far is that he gave ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble in Sicily -- even conspiracy theories have more support behind them than this. There is reading in between the lines, and there is reading your precommitments into the facts. So far there is no reason to believe anything but the latter.
The obvious motive for him wanting to hide his intentions is that he was Empire building, which would naturaly, if it were known to them, make every leader of every nation surrounding him nervous and possibly cause them to ally together against him.
That evidence of him gaving ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble is pretty strong evidence though, why would he do such a thing if the only thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines?
The Byzantines were going though some pretty bad political times with the dethroning of Romanos almost taking them to the verge of civil war. The whole place was politicaly quite unstable and it was an opportune moment for Urban to attempt to seize Byzantine lands for Catholicism, which, along with his granting of ecclesiastical powers to Roger that would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, makes it look very much like expansion was definately part the plan.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 10th, 2009 at 12:22pm : You're interpreting Christianity as skipping straight from Creation to Eschaton, but in between you've missed Fall and Redemption.
No, I'm simply stating that even if God exists (which I don't 'believe' is the case) then if that God is pure love, it makes no sense whatsoever for him to be against the consentual love between two people of the same sex who he himself had created to be homosexual.
Edit: Some weird stuff is going on with my view of posts on this thread so I'm going to respond re:Crusades later. I'd rather respond to everything you say. But I suspect I've got all of this:
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am : No, I'm simply stating that even if God exists (which I don't 'believe' is the case) then if that God is pure love, it makes no sense whatsoever for him to be against the consentual love between two people of the same sex who he himself had created to be homosexual.
Yes, I got the argument the first time. Anything you see today is a mixture of "Creation" and "Fall," so you can't assume that just because something exists it must be exactly how God created it to be. Again, plenty of people feel "naturally" drawn to rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc., but that doesn't mean that that was God's creative purpose.
Edit: Some weird stuff is going on with my view of posts on this thread so I'm going to respond re:Crusades later. I'd rather respond to everything you say. But I suspect I've got all of this:
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:39:22']No, I'm simply stating that even if God exists (which I don't 'believe' is the case) then if that God is pure love, it makes no sense whatsoever for him to be against the consentual love between two people of the same sex who he himself had created to be homosexual.[/QUOTE] Yes, I got the argument the first time. Anything you see today is a mixture of "Creation" and "Fall," so you can't assume that just because something exists it must be exactly how God created it to be. Again, plenty of people feel "naturally" drawn to rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc., but that doesn't mean that that was God's creative purpose.
This whole homosexuality argument revolves around whether homosexuality is inherent, genetic, an emotional transformation, etc. etc.
Evidence points to that fact that homosexuality is indeed biological, but it's not even near conclusive. A lot of the 'evidence' is stuff like left handed people have a much higher tendency to be gay, or that people whose hair swirls to the left have a higher tendency to be gay. I mean, there is better evidence out there, but I'm just saying that I think it's impossible to found out for sure.
And man is evil by nature. I don't think there's really any denying that. Homosexuality can be one of those evils as stanley mentioned.
My personal opinion is that homosexuality is biological and is a result of sin or is a trial/test by God, but that there are quite a few non-biological fake gays out there.
This whole homosexuality argument revolves around whether homosexuality is inherent, genetic, an emotional transformation, etc. etc.
Evidence points to that fact that homosexuality is indeed biological, but it's not even near conclusive. A lot of the 'evidence' is stuff like left handed people have a much higher tendency to be gay, or that people whose hair swirls to the left have a higher tendency to be gay. I mean, there is better evidence out there, but I'm just saying that I think it's impossible to found out for sure.
And man is evil by nature. I don't think there's really any denying that. Homosexuality can be one of those evils as stanley mentioned.
My personal opinion is that homosexuality is biological and is a result of sin or is a trial/test by God, but that there are quite a few non-biological fake gays out there.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 9:52am : Edit: Some weird stuff is going on with my view of posts on this thread so I'm going to respond re:Crusades later. I'd rather respond to everything you say. But I suspect I've got all of this:
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am : No, I'm simply stating that even if God exists (which I don't 'believe' is the case) then if that God is pure love, it makes no sense whatsoever for him to be against the consentual love between two people of the same sex who he himself had created to be homosexual.
Yes, I got the argument the first time. Anything you see today is a mixture of "Creation" and "Fall," so you can't assume that just because something exists it must be exactly how God created it to be.
I don't, because I don't actualy believe God exists, so my point was a purely hypothetical one. If God exists and if homosexuality is biological rather than choice, then it's hardly going to be caused by someone eating a piece of fruit between 8000 and 6000 years ago.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 9:52am : Again, plenty of people feel "naturally" drawn to rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc., but that doesn't mean that that was God's creative purpose.
I've noticed you keep comparing homosexuality with 'rape, murder, theft, deceit' etc. Why is that?
Of course, as an atheist, I cannot agree with your statement that everything we see today is a mixture of "Creation" and "Fall" as I don't believe a creation or a fall took place.
The story of the creation of man from clay obviously goes against what the generaly accepted evidence says about our own evolution and the story of the fall appears to be a metaphoric story about the Neolithic Revolution.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 9:52am : Edit: Some weird stuff is going on with my view of posts on this thread so I'm going to respond re:Crusades later. I'd rather respond to everything you say. But I suspect I've got all of this:
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am : No, I'm simply stating that even if God exists (which I don't 'believe' is the case) then if that God is pure love, it makes no sense whatsoever for him to be against the consentual love between two people of the same sex who he himself had created to be homosexual.
Yes, I got the argument the first time. Anything you see today is a mixture of "Creation" and "Fall," so you can't assume that just because something exists it must be exactly how God created it to be.
I don't, because I don't actualy believe God exists, so my point was a purely hypothetical one. If God exists and if homosexuality is biological rather than choice, then it's hardly going to be caused by someone eating a piece of fruit between 8000 and 6000 years ago.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 9:52am : Again, plenty of people feel "naturally" drawn to rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc., but that doesn't mean that that was God's creative purpose.
I've noticed you keep comparing homosexuality with 'rape, murder, theft, deceit' etc. Why is that?
Of course, as an atheist, I cannot agree with your statement that everything we see today is a mixture of "Creation" and "Fall" as I don't believe a creation or a fall took place.
The story of the creation of man from clay obviously goes against what the generaly accepted evidence says about our own evolution and the story of the fall appears to be a metaphoric story about the Neolithic Revolution.
Yea...i actually have issues with the whole idea of creation/fall...seeing as i kinda believe in evolution, that kinda kills the whole garden of Eden thing, which kinda kills the Fall... I also don't believe in original sin....soooooo most of those arguments kinda don't make sense to me.
yay for my random comment of the day!
Yea...i actually have issues with the whole idea of creation/fall...seeing as i kinda believe in evolution, that kinda kills the whole garden of Eden thing, which kinda kills the Fall... I also don't believe in original sin....soooooo most of those arguments kinda don't make sense to me.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Oct 13th, 2009 at 11:45pm : Yea...i actually have issues with the whole idea of creation/fall...seeing as i kinda believe in evolution, that kinda kills the whole garden of Eden thing, which kinda kills the Fall... I also don't believe in original sin....soooooo most of those arguments kinda don't make sense to me.
yay for my random comment of the day!
Well as I've probably mentioned elsewhere, we can put a rough location of the Garden of Eden to somewhere within modern Iraq, because the Bible mentions the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in connection with Eden, these two rivers actualy define what used to be Mesopotamia which literaly means "land between the rivers" and because the Bible mentions that the Euphrates waters the Garden of Eden, we can also date the Garden of Eden to no earlier than 8000 years ago because by dating the first sediments layed down in the Euphrates, we can date the Euphrates to being around 8000 years old.
Humans have definately been around for a lot longer than 8000 years and rather than originating in Iraq, all the evidence points to humanity originating in Africa, so the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the Fall probably wasn't originaly about the origins of man.
The Ussher Chronology puts Adam and Eve's existance at around 6000 years ago, and the main thing that was happening in that area between 8000 and 6000 years ago was the Neolithic Revolution or 'onset of agriculture' and because the story talks about a 'Garden' and mentions the growing of fruit, then it looks pretty likely that the story is actualy about the development of agriculture and the first permanant human settlements and the connotations that this would have to the religion of the hunter/gatherers in that time and area, which is highly unlikely to have been a monotheistic religion because the oldest known monotheistic religion can only be dated to around 3300 years old.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Oct 13th, 2009 at 11:45pm : Yea...i actually have issues with the whole idea of creation/fall...seeing as i kinda believe in evolution, that kinda kills the whole garden of Eden thing, which kinda kills the Fall... I also don't believe in original sin....soooooo most of those arguments kinda don't make sense to me.
yay for my random comment of the day!
Well as I've probably mentioned elsewhere, we can put a rough location of the Garden of Eden to somewhere within modern Iraq, because the Bible mentions the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in connection with Eden, these two rivers actualy define what used to be Mesopotamia which literaly means "land between the rivers" and because the Bible mentions that the Euphrates waters the Garden of Eden, we can also date the Garden of Eden to no earlier than 8000 years ago because by dating the first sediments layed down in the Euphrates, we can date the Euphrates to being around 8000 years old.
Humans have definately been around for a lot longer than 8000 years and rather than originating in Iraq, all the evidence points to humanity originating in Africa, so the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the Fall probably wasn't originaly about the origins of man.
The Ussher Chronology puts Adam and Eve's existance at around 6000 years ago, and the main thing that was happening in that area between 8000 and 6000 years ago was the Neolithic Revolution or 'onset of agriculture' and because the story talks about a 'Garden' and mentions the growing of fruit, then it looks pretty likely that the story is actualy about the development of agriculture and the first permanant human settlements and the connotations that this would have to the religion of the hunter/gatherers in that time and area, which is highly unlikely to have been a monotheistic religion because the oldest known monotheistic religion can only be dated to around 3300 years old.
You know what? What if the mentioning of the rivers is metaphorical? Maybe it was just a to give a general picture of what Eden actually may have looked like. Many things in the Bible are metaphorical or are just there to try and explain. It doesn't make sense to take certain parts of the Bible metaphorically and some literally. Slacker, you're taking the rivers literally. I don't really have a position on this or many other biblical subjects. Just making a comment for the point of discussion
You know what? What if the mentioning of the rivers is metaphorical? Maybe it was just a to give a general picture of what Eden actually may have looked like. Many things in the Bible are metaphorical or are just there to try and explain. It doesn't make sense to take certain parts of the Bible metaphorically and some literally. Slacker, you're taking the rivers literally. I don't really have a position on this or many other biblical subjects. Just making a comment for the point of discussion
^well, metaphorical-ness in this situation would make a lot of sense because the people who became Israelites may have very well come from the region described in Genesis, or at least, the Creation story that they identity as their own may have come from that area at least.
^well, metaphorical-ness in this situation would make a lot of sense because the people who became Israelites may have very well come from the region described in Genesis, or at least, the Creation story that they identity as their own may have come from that area at least.
apak wrote on Oct 14th, 2009 at 8:31pm : You know what? What if the mentioning of the rivers is metaphorical? Maybe it was just a to give a general picture of what Eden actually may have looked like. Many things in the Bible are metaphorical or are just there to try and explain. It doesn't make sense to take certain parts of the Bible metaphorically and some literally. Slacker, you're taking the rivers literally. I don't really have a position on this or many other biblical subjects. Just making a comment for the point of discussion
Yeah, I know what you mean, and I thought along similar lines when I first started looking into it, but it's not just the rivers mentioned, there's plenty of other factors that lead to Mesootamia, starting with the date. As I mentioned earlier, using Ussher's chronology, which figures out the age of Adam and Eve using Biblical lineages and ages given in the Bible dates it to around 6000 years ago, a figure that has been confirmed time and again by other Bible chronologists like John Lightfoot, Bede, Scaliger, Johannes Kepler, even Isaac Newton.
Now, historicaly, the earliest civilisation on earth was the Mesopotamians, in the same area that still contains the Euphrates and Trigris rivers, dating to around 6000 years ago.
Every major advancement of early humankind happened there first, agriculture, perminant settlement, towns, cities, major trading, writing.... no wonder it's known as the 'cradle of civilization', and all this happened between 10,000 and 6000 years ago. Of that list, the last one was 'writing' around 6000 years ago, so up until then all knowledge of the history of the area would have been passed via word of mouth, probably as a form of storytelling, but that's 4000 years of a story being told. Over such a long time, we can expect quite a large 'Chinese Whispers' effect so the story will have changed from the original quite a lot by the time it could have been first written down, but it would still contain small traces of the original.
As it happens, the Babylonian (a Mesopotamian civilisation) creation myth, the Enûma Elish, has quite a lot in common with the Genesis version. In the Enûma Elish , the whole of creation is brought into play via a god's spoken command and humans are created from clay which is followed by a period of divine rest, sounds familiar? The ancient Mesopotamians and Hebrews also both believed that the earth was a flat circular disc surrounded by a saltwater sea. Since the Mesopotamian myth is considered to be older than the Hebrew Bible, the former is assumed to be the original story, which, based on the similarities between the two, was used as base material by the ancient Hebrews to formulate their own version.
We know for definate that we as a species have been around for at least 200,000 years, so if we are looking at something that the Bible says happened 6000 years ago, it's obviously not the creation of the first man and woman.
[QUOTE u='apak' d='2009-10-14 20:31:01']You know what? What if the mentioning of the rivers is metaphorical? Maybe it was just a to give a general picture of what Eden actually may have looked like. Many things in the Bible are metaphorical or are just there to try and explain. It doesn't make sense to take certain parts of the Bible metaphorically and some literally. Slacker, you're taking the rivers literally. I don't really have a position on this or many other biblical subjects. Just making a comment for the point of discussion [/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know what you mean, and I thought along similar lines when I first started looking into it, but it's not just the rivers mentioned, there's plenty of other factors that lead to Mesootamia, starting with the date. As I mentioned earlier, using Ussher's chronology, which figures out the age of Adam and Eve using Biblical lineages and ages given in the Bible dates it to around 6000 years ago, a figure that has been confirmed time and again by other Bible chronologists like John Lightfoot, Bede, Scaliger, Johannes Kepler, even Isaac Newton.
Now, historicaly, the earliest civilisation on earth was the Mesopotamians, in the same area that still contains the Euphrates and Trigris rivers, dating to around 6000 years ago.
Every major advancement of early humankind happened there first, agriculture, perminant settlement, towns, cities, major trading, writing.... no wonder it's known as the 'cradle of civilization', and all this happened between 10,000 and 6000 years ago. Of that list, the last one was 'writing' around 6000 years ago, so up until then all knowledge of the history of the area would have been passed via word of mouth, probably as a form of storytelling, but that's 4000 years of a story being told. Over such a long time, we can expect quite a large 'Chinese Whispers' effect so the story will have changed from the original quite a lot by the time it could have been first written down, but it would still contain small traces of the original.
As it happens, the Babylonian (a Mesopotamian civilisation) creation myth, the Enûma Elish, has quite a lot in common with the Genesis version. In the Enûma Elish , the whole of creation is brought into play via a god's spoken command and humans are created from clay which is followed by a period of divine rest, sounds familiar? The ancient Mesopotamians and Hebrews also both believed that the earth was a flat circular disc surrounded by a saltwater sea. Since the Mesopotamian myth is considered to be older than the Hebrew Bible, the former is assumed to be the original story, which, based on the similarities between the two, was used as base material by the ancient Hebrews to formulate their own version.
We know for definate that we as a species have been around for at least 200,000 years, so if we are looking at something that the Bible says happened 6000 years ago, it's obviously not the creation of the first man and woman.
And what does the story in Genesis revolve around? The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
Fruit was actualy pretty central to the first perminant settlements. Y'see, our development kinda happened in three phases, originaly we were 'hunter/gatherers', wandering around, picking edible flora and killing any game we came across than camping down in one place for a short time before moving on, then we became 'semi-nomadic', settling in one place for 6 months, long enough to grow and harvest early crops such as wheat before migrating to better hunting grounds for the winter, then we became 'settled agricultualists', penning in game, making perminant houses, growing enough crops in the summer to see the comminity through the winter, but the growing of fruit could only have happend in this last phase because it takes years to grow a fruit tree to a size that gives a harvest worth collecting so in order to grow fruit trees, you have to first settle in one place.
And Mesopotamia is home to the oldest known remains of orchards, and although the Bible doesn't specificaly say what the fruit of knowledge was, legend says it was an apple, which is the oldest known domesticaly grown fruit.
Now look at the word 'Paradise', which is often used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden, it actualy shares a number of characteristics with words for 'walled orchard garden' or 'enclosed hunting park' in ancient Persian. This again suggests agriculture, the growing of fruit and the penning of game, another development that would make perminant settlement in one place possible as there would now be no need to move to better hunting grounds for the winter.
Whichever angle you look at it from, the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden appears to be involved with the story of agriculture and it's affects on mankind, it's literaly the history of the area of Mesopotamia.
So what effects could agriculture have on religion?
Well the earliest known deity to be worshipped was a form of Mother Goddess which, because of the Mother Goddess association of 'Venus Figurines' can be dated back to around 25,000 years ago. Venus figurines were carried around by hunter/hatherers, so this was their religion. The Mother Goddess was basicaly 'nature', so to a hunter/gatherer, the Mother Goddess is responsible for providing all that they hunted or gathered.
Now imagine what agriculture would do to that concept. The Mother Goddess was no longer needed, people were growing their own crops and breeding their own game in pens, (but what they would need was the sun, which is very important when growing crops, so this may be how the the beginnings of solar worship happened) so we may be looking at the rejection of a deity, caused by agriculture.
Interestingly, in most hunter/gatherer and semi-nomadic tribes, anything to do with plants, which would include both gathering and growing any crops, is the woman's responsibility, so it makes sense that the first people to grow fruit would be women, and in Genesis, we see Eve eating the fruit first then offering the fruit to Adam.
And what does the story in Genesis revolve around? The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
Fruit was actualy pretty central to the first perminant settlements. Y'see, our development kinda happened in three phases, originaly we were 'hunter/gatherers', wandering around, picking edible flora and killing any game we came across than camping down in one place for a short time before moving on, then we became 'semi-nomadic', settling in one place for 6 months, long enough to grow and harvest early crops such as wheat before migrating to better hunting grounds for the winter, then we became 'settled agricultualists', penning in game, making perminant houses, growing enough crops in the summer to see the comminity through the winter, but the growing of fruit could only have happend in this last phase because it takes years to grow a fruit tree to a size that gives a harvest worth collecting so in order to grow fruit trees, you have to first settle in one place.
And Mesopotamia is home to the oldest known remains of orchards, and although the Bible doesn't specificaly say what the fruit of knowledge was, legend says it was an apple, which is the oldest known domesticaly grown fruit.
Now look at the word 'Paradise', which is often used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden, it actualy shares a number of characteristics with words for 'walled orchard garden' or 'enclosed hunting park' in ancient Persian. This again suggests agriculture, the growing of fruit and the penning of game, another development that would make perminant settlement in one place possible as there would now be no need to move to better hunting grounds for the winter.
Whichever angle you look at it from, the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden appears to be involved with the story of agriculture and it's affects on mankind, it's literaly the history of the area of Mesopotamia.
So what effects could agriculture have on religion?
Well the earliest known deity to be worshipped was a form of Mother Goddess which, because of the Mother Goddess association of 'Venus Figurines' can be dated back to around 25,000 years ago. Venus figurines were carried around by hunter/hatherers, so this was their religion. The Mother Goddess was basicaly 'nature', so to a hunter/gatherer, the Mother Goddess is responsible for providing all that they hunted or gathered.
Now imagine what agriculture would do to that concept. The Mother Goddess was no longer needed, people were growing their own crops and breeding their own game in pens, (but what they would need was the sun, which is very important when growing crops, so this may be how the the beginnings of solar worship happened) so we may be looking at the rejection of a deity, caused by agriculture.
Interestingly, in most hunter/gatherer and semi-nomadic tribes, anything to do with plants, which would include both gathering and growing any crops, is the woman's responsibility, so it makes sense that the first people to grow fruit would be women, and in Genesis, we see Eve eating the fruit first then offering the fruit to Adam.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 12th, 2009 at 3:13am : I don't, because I
don't actualy believe God exists, so my point was a purely hypothetical
one. If God exists and if homosexuality is biological rather than
choice, then it's hardly going to be caused by someone eating a piece
of fruit between 8000 and 6000 years ago.
If your plan here is just to commit the straw-man fallacy then I'll
just say that atheists eat babies and you're a poopy-head and that will
be that. I'd recommend sober reasoning instead. For instance, by
recognizing that only a small number of Christian theologians are stuck
to understanding the Fall as "someone eating a piece of fruit between
8000 and 6000 years ago." It's as if you'd rather not deal with real
Christian thought, because it's so much easier to play with hackneyed
stereotypes.
Now, I understand that your point is a purely hypothetical one. I
don't think that you would say that the Father created all
things in the Son by the Spirit, or that God's purpose in Creation was
broken and Jesus came to redeem it. But your argument was that there
is an internal incoherence between believing in God's creation
of all things and making moral judgments regarding what people whom God
created do. I'm responding that the Christian doctrine of the Fall makes this a non-issue.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 12th, 2009 at 3:13am : I've noticed you keep
comparing homosexuality with 'rape, murder, theft, deceit' etc. Why is that?
Again, it looks like you'd rather try to poke fun than deal with real,
focused reasoning. The reason I'm comparing them is that they are all
subjects of moral discourse. The point I'm making is that we should
suspect something has gone terribly wrong with your argument because if
it works it also proves that rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc. too
often belong outside of the realm of moral discourse. What that means
is that your argument in fact is not so much a problem of
Christian ethicsas it is a problem for your ethics.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 12th, 2009 at 3:13am : Of course, as an atheist, I
cannot agree with your statement that everything we see today is a
mixture of "Creation" and "Fall" as I don't believe a creation or a
fall took place.
Wasn't this obvious?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Dec 31st, 1969 at 7:00pm : The story of the creation of man from clay obviously goes
against what the generaly accepted evidence says about our own
evolution and the story of the fall appears to be a metaphoric story
about the Neolithic Revolution.
But this works only if you privilege one very specific way of reading
texts. I don't have to be an Aristotelian to use the word 'sunrise.'
I also don't have to deny that the brain is the seat of personality
while the heart pumps blood in order to say that someone has a kind
heart. And I don't have to think that if I ground up my fingernails I
would have dirt in order to think that people came from earth. If
anything evolutionary theory claims to tell some if not all of the
story of how it was that humanity arose from the world.
Similarly, of course there are echoes of the Neolithic Revolution in
Genesis. We have the development of farming, cities, metal-working,
etc. But this doesn't at all invalidate the thread in the first eleven
chapters of Genesis that is explaining how people were alienated from
God and each other, how things are not the way they were supposed to
be, how the world was broken, and subsequently in chapter 12 how God is
responding to this devastation in the world with the call of Abraham
and the promise that through him God would make the world right. If
you want to interpret it as an account of the Neolithic revolution,
that's fine, but it's still showing how in the Neolithic revolution
serious problems were becoming manifest in the world.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-12 03:13:35']I don't, because I
don't actualy believe God exists, so my point was a purely hypothetical
one. If God exists and if homosexuality is biological rather than
choice, then it's hardly going to be caused by someone eating a piece
of fruit between 8000 and 6000 years ago.[/quote]
If your plan here is just to commit the straw-man fallacy then I'll
just say that atheists eat babies and you're a poopy-head and that will
be that. I'd recommend sober reasoning instead. For instance, by
recognizing that only a small number of Christian theologians are stuck
to understanding the Fall as "someone eating a piece of fruit between
8000 and 6000 years ago." It's as if you'd rather not deal with real
Christian thought, because it's so much easier to play with hackneyed
stereotypes.
Now, I understand that your point is a purely hypothetical one. I
don't think that [i]you[/i] would say that the Father created all
things in the Son by the Spirit, or that God's purpose in Creation was
broken and Jesus came to redeem it. But your argument was that there
is an [i]internal[/i] incoherence between believing in God's creation
of all things and making moral judgments regarding what people whom God
created do. I'm responding that the Christian doctrine of the Fall makes this a non-issue.
[QUOTE
u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-12 03:13:35']I've noticed you keep
comparing homosexuality with 'rape, murder, theft, deceit' etc. Why is that?[/quote]
Again, it looks like you'd rather try to poke fun than deal with real,
focused reasoning. The reason I'm comparing them is that they are all
subjects of moral discourse. The point I'm making is that we should
suspect something has gone terribly wrong with your argument because if
it works it also proves that rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc. too
often belong outside of the realm of moral discourse. What that means
is that your argument in fact is not so much a problem of
[i]Christian[/i] ethicsas it is a problem for [i]your[/i] ethics.
[QUOTE
u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-12 03:13:35']Of course, as an atheist, I
cannot agree with your statement that everything we see today is a
mixture of "Creation" and "Fall" as I don't believe a creation or a
fall took place.[/quote]
Wasn't this obvious?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-12
03:13:35']The story of the creation of man from clay obviously goes
against what the generaly accepted evidence says about our own
evolution and the story of the fall appears to be a metaphoric story
about the Neolithic Revolution.[/QUOTE]
But this works only if you privilege one very specific way of reading
texts. I don't have to be an Aristotelian to use the word 'sunrise.'
I also don't have to deny that the brain is the seat of personality
while the heart pumps blood in order to say that someone has a kind
heart. And I don't have to think that if I ground up my fingernails I
would have dirt in order to think that people came from earth. If
anything evolutionary theory claims to tell some if not all of the
story of [i]how[/i] it was that humanity arose from the world.
Similarly, of course there are echoes of the Neolithic Revolution in
Genesis. We have the development of farming, cities, metal-working,
etc. But this doesn't at all invalidate the thread in the first eleven
chapters of Genesis that is explaining how people were alienated from
God and each other, how things are not the way they were supposed to
be, how the world was broken, and subsequently in chapter 12 how God is
responding to this devastation in the world with the call of Abraham
and the promise that through him God would make the world right. If
you want to interpret it as an account of the Neolithic revolution,
that's fine, but it's still showing how in the Neolithic revolution
serious problems were becoming manifest in the world.
bored_maniac33 wrote on Oct 13th, 2009 at 11:45pm : Yea...i actually have issues with the whole idea of creation/fall...seeing as i kinda believe in evolution, that kinda kills the whole garden of Eden thing, which kinda kills the Fall... I also don't believe in original sin....soooooo most of those arguments kinda don't make sense to me.
Christians in the Orthodox tradition despise the doctrine of original sin but still believe in the Fall. Similarly, following World War I Barth (central theologian of the 20th century) and the Neibuhrs renewed a strong emphasis on the Fall, while still believing it to be ahistorical. For that matter, the founding father of Biblical inerrancy, BB Warfield, was quite cozy with evolution, but still had a very robust doctrine of the Fall (he was a conservative Calvinist). So I don't think these arguments should be unable to make sense to you. Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Eschaton: Christians are united in seeing these are four central elements of the Christian story of the world, even though particular understandings of each element vary widely.
[QUOTE u='bored_maniac33' d='2009-10-13 23:45:04']Yea...i actually have issues with the whole idea of creation/fall...seeing as i kinda believe in evolution, that kinda kills the whole garden of Eden thing, which kinda kills the Fall... I also don't believe in original sin....soooooo most of those arguments kinda don't make sense to me.[/quote] Christians in the Orthodox tradition despise the doctrine of original sin but still believe in the Fall. Similarly, following World War I Barth (central theologian of the 20th century) and the Neibuhrs renewed a strong emphasis on the Fall, while still believing it to be ahistorical. For that matter, the founding father of Biblical inerrancy, BB Warfield, was quite cozy with evolution, but still had a very robust doctrine of the Fall (he was a conservative Calvinist). So I don't think these arguments should be unable to make sense to you. Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Eschaton: Christians are united in seeing these are four central elements of the Christian story of the world, even though particular understandings of each element vary widely.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:34am : Reconquest of what
though? ...Urban almost looks like he was trying to regain the whole
Roman Empire.
Basically, yes.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:34am : Relevant when you mention it but irrelevant when I mention it?
Can you tell me where I've done this? I honestly can't remember doing
so. And also, let's make sure not to forget that you haven't responded
to the actual argument that I made: It's easy to bracket off your
religious/political dichotomy (which, again, is anachronistic) and just
talk about one Christian civilization coming to the aid of another
Christian civilization when it was threatened by a non-Christian
civilization.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:34am : Which previous offer was this?
I can't remember the particulars, to be honest with you. He takes a
town and offers it in exchange for the cessation of the siege on one of
his Anatolian cities. Either way, the Seljuks were already on the
offensive and, as we know, peace made over contested lands can't be
trusted to last.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:34am : The same Constantinople that the Crusaders later sacked?
I assume that means you'd rather not respond to the actual things I say? Are we done with focused reasoning?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:34am : Although commentators
of his time and ours believed he was sincere, many other commentators
of his time and ours didn't, there are two sides to every story.
We can start listing them if you like. It will be a very one-sided
list. (Again, I'll start with Madden and Riley-Smith. One was in
charge of Oxford's history of the crusades, and the other is the top
scholar of the Crusades.) Still, by quoting just this one snippet of
what I wrote we're missing the real scope of my argument, so let's move
on:
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am : Which I believe we
mentioned earlier had been under Muslim rule for 400 years. That can
hardly be classed as 'reconquest' after so much time.
Jerusalem itself, sure. But Muslim conquest did not end with
Jerusalem, and the further pieces of that conquest had been sites of
conflict ever since the first great Muslim conquest. The fight started
in that original conquest had been simmering the whole time, and
finally it broke out again in all-out war.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am : The obvious
motive for him wanting to hide his intentions is that he was Empire
building, which would naturaly, if it were known to them, make every
leader of every nation surrounding him nervous and possibly cause them
to ally together against him.
1. Which nations? Eastern
Christendom, which asked for his help in the first place? The Muslims,
whom he was attacking? How is Reconquest any better here than saying
"The Muslims are evil and so have to conquer them!" Why did he have to lie in all contexts, even private?
2. Again, the reformist monks from which Urban came had been calling
for Reconquest for decades, and his Reconquest aimed at exactly the
lands they'd been talking about. If it walks like a duck, and quacks
like a
duck... what if it's really a duck? Clearly the driving force behind
your conclusion is that you've decided in advance that Urban must have
been a Machiavellian empire-builder.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am : That evidence of
him gaving ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble is
pretty strong evidence though, why would he do such a thing if the only
thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines?
"The only thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines" is a
far cry from "Empire-building." Decisions and motives
over the course of many years will always be complex. And of course,
Your interpretation requires
a pattern in order to connect the dots, not a single case; without a pattern, this single
case is open to many, many different interpretation.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am :
The Byzantines were going though some pretty bad political times with
the dethroning of Romanos almost taking them to the verge of civil war.
The whole place was politicaly quite unstable and it was an opportune
moment for Urban to attempt to seize Byzantine lands for Catholicism,
which, along with his granting of ecclesiastical powers to Roger that
would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, makes
it look very much like expansion was definately part the plan.
He can't say, "Let''s reunite Christendom under our banner"?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:34:35']Reconquest of what
though? ...Urban almost looks like he was trying to regain the whole
Roman Empire.[/quote]
Basically, yes.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:34:35']Relevant when you mention it but irrelevant when I mention it?[/quote]
Can you tell me where I've done this? I honestly can't remember doing
so. And also, let's make sure not to forget that you haven't responded
to the actual argument that I made: It's easy to bracket off your
religious/political dichotomy (which, again, is anachronistic) and just
talk about one Christian civilization coming to the aid of another
Christian civilization when it was threatened by a non-Christian
civilization.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:34:35']Which previous offer was this?[/quote]
I can't remember the particulars, to be honest with you. He takes a
town and offers it in exchange for the cessation of the siege on one of
his Anatolian cities. Either way, the Seljuks were already on the
offensive and, as we know, peace made over contested lands can't be
trusted to last.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:34:35']The same Constantinople that the Crusaders later sacked?[/quote]
I assume that means you'd rather not respond to the actual things I say? Are we done with focused reasoning?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:34:35']Although commentators
of his time and ours believed he was sincere, many other commentators
of his time and ours didn't, there are two sides to every story.[/QUOTE]
We can start listing them if you like. It will be a very one-sided
list. (Again, I'll start with Madden and Riley-Smith. One was in
charge of Oxford's history of the crusades, and the other is the top
scholar of the Crusades.) Still, by quoting just this one snippet of
what I wrote we're missing the real scope of my argument, so let's move
on:
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:39:22']Which I believe we
mentioned earlier had been under Muslim rule for 400 years. That can
hardly be classed as 'reconquest' after so much time.[/quote]
Jerusalem itself, sure. But Muslim conquest did not end with
Jerusalem, and the further pieces of that conquest had been sites of
conflict ever since the first great Muslim conquest. The fight started
in that original conquest had been simmering the whole time, and
finally it broke out again in all-out war.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:39:22']The obvious
motive for him wanting to hide his intentions is that he was Empire
building, which would naturaly, if it were known to them, make every
leader of every nation surrounding him nervous and possibly cause them
to ally together against him.[/quote]
1. Which nations? Eastern
Christendom, which asked for his help in the first place? The Muslims,
whom he was attacking? How is Reconquest any better here than saying
"The Muslims are evil and so have to conquer them!" Why did he have to lie in all contexts, even private?
2. Again, the reformist monks from which Urban came had been calling
for Reconquest for decades, and his Reconquest aimed at exactly the
lands they'd been talking about. If it walks like a duck, and quacks
like a
duck... what if it's really a duck? Clearly the driving force behind
your conclusion is that you've decided in advance that Urban must have
been a Machiavellian empire-builder.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:39:22']That evidence of
him gaving ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble is
pretty strong evidence though, why would he do such a thing if the only
thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines?[/quote]
"The only thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines" is a
far cry from "Empire-building." Decisions and motives
over the course of many years will always be complex. And of course,
Your interpretation requires
a pattern in order to connect the dots, not a single case; without a pattern, this single
case is open to many, many different interpretation.
[QUOTE
u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:39:22']
The Byzantines were going though some pretty bad political times with
the dethroning of Romanos almost taking them to the verge of civil war.
The whole place was politicaly quite unstable and it was an opportune
moment for Urban to attempt to seize Byzantine lands for Catholicism,
which, along with his granting of ecclesiastical powers to Roger that
would allow him to expand Catholicism into the Byzantine Empire, makes
it look very much like expansion was definately part the plan.[/quote] He can't say, "Let''s reunite Christendom under our banner"?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 6:58pm :
If your plan here is just to commit the straw-man fallacy then I'll
just say that atheists eat babies and you're a poopy-head and that will
be that. I'd recommend sober reasoning instead. For instance, by
recognizing that only a small number of Christian theologians are stuck
to understanding the Fall as "someone eating a piece of fruit between
8000 and 6000 years ago." It's as if you'd rather not deal with real
Christian thought, because it's so much easier to play with hackneyed
stereotypes.
I'm not the one dealing with stereotypes here. The Chrisitian stererotype of a homosexual is that of a person who is commiting a major sin, and that Christian stereotype is due to Christian doctrine.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 6:58pm : Now, I understand that your point is a purely hypothetical one. I
don't think that you would say that the Father created all
things in the Son by the Spirit, or that God's purpose in Creation was
broken and Jesus came to redeem it. But your argument was that there
is an internal incoherence between believing in God's creation
of all things and making moral judgments regarding what people whom God
created do. I'm responding that the Christian doctrine of the Fall makes this a non-issue.
No, my argument is that I don't morally judge people based on religious doctrine, that just leads to insulting people of different religions, beliefs and lifestyles. I'm more of a 'respect' orientated person than that.
As an atheist, I really do consider much of all religion, including all of the Abrahamic faiths, to be mythology, so to me, the Christian argument against homosexuality may as well be that it's wrong because the Norse god of thunder Thor said is was wrong.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 6:58pm :
Again, it looks like you'd rather try to poke fun than deal with real,
focused reasoning.
How on earth is me telling you my own beliefs and feelings on the matter 'poking fun'? Is it your belief that everyone that disagrees with the Christian stance is just 'poking fun?'
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 6:58pm : The reason I'm comparing them is that they are all
subjects of moral discourse. The point I'm making is that we should
suspect something has gone terribly wrong with your argument because if
it works it also proves that rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc. too
often belong outside of the realm of moral discourse. What that means
is that your argument in fact is not so much a problem of
Christian ethicsas it is a problem for your ethics.
But they are not all subject to moral discourse. Anything that creates a victim is subject to moral discourse so rape, murder, theft, deceit would naturaly be subject to moral discourse. Drug abuse and alcoholism would also be subject to moral discourse because even though it is something that someone is doing to themselves, it affects the way that they treat others around them, which often leads to them victimising others via verbal or physical abuse, the neglect of infants under their care or lads back to the ealier mentioned 'theft' to feed their habits, but homosexuality is simply something that happens between consenting adults, the same as hetrosexuality. It's simply an expression of love between two people who happen to naturaly feel a sexual attraction to people of the same gender as themselves. That makes homosexuality something completely different from rape, murder, theft and deceit and I personaly think that to willingly associate members of our own community with this kind of immorality is in itself 'immoral' as it creates victims out of homosexuals.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 18:58:44']
If your plan here is just to commit the straw-man fallacy then I'll
just say that atheists eat babies and you're a poopy-head and that will
be that. I'd recommend sober reasoning instead. For instance, by
recognizing that only a small number of Christian theologians are stuck
to understanding the Fall as "someone eating a piece of fruit between
8000 and 6000 years ago." It's as if you'd rather not deal with real
Christian thought, because it's so much easier to play with hackneyed
stereotypes.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not the one dealing with stereotypes here. The Chrisitian stererotype of a homosexual is that of a person who is commiting a major sin, and that Christian stereotype is due to Christian doctrine.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 18:58:44']Now, I understand that your point is a purely hypothetical one. I
don't think that [i]you[/i] would say that the Father created all
things in the Son by the Spirit, or that God's purpose in Creation was
broken and Jesus came to redeem it. But your argument was that there
is an [i]internal[/i] incoherence between believing in God's creation
of all things and making moral judgments regarding what people whom God
created do. I'm responding that the Christian doctrine of the Fall makes this a non-issue.
[/QUOTE]
No, my argument is that I don't morally judge people based on religious doctrine, that just leads to insulting people of different religions, beliefs and lifestyles. I'm more of a 'respect' orientated person than that.
As an atheist, I really do consider much of all religion, including all of the Abrahamic faiths, to be mythology, so to me, the Christian argument against homosexuality may as well be that it's wrong because the Norse god of thunder Thor said is was wrong.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 18:58:44']
Again, it looks like you'd rather try to poke fun than deal with real,
focused reasoning.[/QUOTE]
How on earth is me telling you my own beliefs and feelings on the matter 'poking fun'? Is it your belief that everyone that disagrees with the Christian stance is just 'poking fun?'
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 18:58:44'] The reason I'm comparing them is that they are all
subjects of moral discourse. The point I'm making is that we should
suspect something has gone terribly wrong with your argument because if
it works it also proves that rape, murder, theft, deceit, etc. too
often belong outside of the realm of moral discourse. What that means
is that your argument in fact is not so much a problem of
[i]Christian[/i] ethicsas it is a problem for [i]your[/i] ethics. [/QUOTE]
But they are not all subject to moral discourse. Anything that creates a victim is subject to moral discourse so rape, murder, theft, deceit would naturaly be subject to moral discourse. Drug abuse and alcoholism would also be subject to moral discourse because even though it is something that someone is doing to themselves, it affects the way that they treat others around them, which often leads to them victimising others via verbal or physical abuse, the neglect of infants under their care or lads back to the ealier mentioned 'theft' to feed their habits, but homosexuality is simply something that happens between consenting adults, the same as hetrosexuality. It's simply an expression of love between two people who happen to naturaly feel a sexual attraction to people of the same gender as themselves. That makes homosexuality something completely different from rape, murder, theft and deceit and I personaly think that to willingly associate members of our own community with this kind of immorality is in itself 'immoral' as it creates victims out of homosexuals.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 6:58pm :
But this works only if you privilege one very specific way of reading
texts.
So are you claiming that the belief in God creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the belief in the Fall of Man due to something happening in the Garden of Eden that would morally affect all of humanity from then on isn't essentialy down to the priviliging of one very specific way of reading texts?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 6:58pm :
I don't have to be an Aristotelian to use the word 'sunrise.'
I also don't have to deny that the brain is the seat of personality
while the heart pumps blood in order to say that someone has a kind
heart. And I don't have to think that if I ground up my fingernails I
would have dirt in order to think that people came from earth. If
anything evolutionary theory claims to tell some if not all of the
story of how it was that humanity arose from the world.
No, but you do have be an adherent to an Abrahamic form of religion in order to believe that the 'God' in Genesis exists and that Genesis should be read literaly.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 6:58pm :
Similarly, of course there are echoes of the Neolithic Revolution in
Genesis. We have the development of farming, cities, metal-working,
etc. But this doesn't at all invalidate the thread in the first eleven
chapters of Genesis that is explaining how people were alienated from
God and each other, how things are not the way they were supposed to
be, how the world was broken, and subsequently in chapter 12 how God is
responding to this devastation in the world with the call of Abraham
and the promise that through him God would make the world right. If
you want to interpret it as an account of the Neolithic revolution,
that's fine, but it's still showing how in the Neolithic revolution
serious problems were becoming manifest in the world.
To that, I can partway agree. If it wasn't for the Neolithic Revolution, we wouldn't have the overpopulation problems and everything that comes with like man made pollution that we have today. But that could hardly be caused by people alienating themselves from a God that people wouldn't develop a notion of for another several thousand years.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 18:58:44']
But this works only if you privilege one very specific way of reading
texts.[/QUOTE]
So are you claiming that the belief in God creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the belief in the Fall of Man due to something happening in the Garden of Eden that would morally affect all of humanity from then on isn't essentialy down to the priviliging of one very specific way of reading texts?
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 18:58:44']
I don't have to be an Aristotelian to use the word 'sunrise.'
I also don't have to deny that the brain is the seat of personality
while the heart pumps blood in order to say that someone has a kind
heart. And I don't have to think that if I ground up my fingernails I
would have dirt in order to think that people came from earth. If
anything evolutionary theory claims to tell some if not all of the
story of [i]how[/i] it was that humanity arose from the world.[/QUOTE]
No, but you do have be an adherent to an Abrahamic form of religion in order to believe that the 'God' in Genesis exists and that Genesis should be read literaly.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 18:58:44']
Similarly, of course there are echoes of the Neolithic Revolution in
Genesis. We have the development of farming, cities, metal-working,
etc. But this doesn't at all invalidate the thread in the first eleven
chapters of Genesis that is explaining how people were alienated from
God and each other, how things are not the way they were supposed to
be, how the world was broken, and subsequently in chapter 12 how God is
responding to this devastation in the world with the call of Abraham
and the promise that through him God would make the world right. If
you want to interpret it as an account of the Neolithic revolution,
that's fine, but it's still showing how in the Neolithic revolution
serious problems were becoming manifest in the world. [/QUOTE]
To that, I can partway agree. If it wasn't for the Neolithic Revolution, we wouldn't have the overpopulation problems and everything that comes with like man made pollution that we have today. But that could hardly be caused by people alienating themselves from a God that people wouldn't develop a notion of for another several thousand years.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 7:51pm :
Basically, yes.
So he 'was' empire building?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 7:51pm :
Can you tell me where I've done this?
After reading that though again, I now realise that I had misunderstood your meaning. I apologise.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 7:51pm :
And also, let's make sure not to forget that you haven't responded
to the actual argument that I made: It's easy to bracket off your
religious/political dichotomy (which, again, is anachronistic) and just
talk about one Christian civilization coming to the aid of another
Christian civilization when it was threatened by a non-Christian
civilization.
But that's not how it happened. Yes, the first move was made by Arslan, but then after a few battles between the two sides, which saw advantage go either way and back again, peace was made between Romanos and Arslan, a treaty was agreed upon and both men came to respect one another, at that point, no Christian civilisation was under threat from Islam. Infact, even if Arslen would have conquered the entire world, Christianity would still not be under threat from Islam because under Isamic rule at the time there was complete freedom of religion. That freedom of religion is actualy something that comes from the Quran ;
"Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine,". It basicaly means let us agree to disagree on matters of religion and live as brothers.
In that respect, Islam had far more to fear from Christianity than vice versa because under Christian rule, there was generaly no such freedom of Religion.
Anyhow, I digress, Romanos was deposed and those that replaced him renaged on the deal and then called in another Christian civilisation to help them wage war upon Arslan, which Urban then turned into a war against Islam and also took the opportunity to gain land in the Byzantine territory for Catholicism.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 11th, 2009 at 6:39am : That evidence of
him gaving ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble is
pretty strong evidence though, why would he do such a thing if the only
thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 7:51pm :
"The only thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines" is a
far cry from "Empire-building." Decisions and motives
over the course of many years will always be complex. And of course,
Your interpretation requires
a pattern in order to connect the dots, not a single case; without a pattern, this single
case is open to many, many different interpretation.
So, in your opinion, what was the actual reason for Urban who bestow those extraordinary prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I?
When Rodger took over Sicily, under Urban's prerogatives he turned the archbishopric of Palermo into a Catholic see. He actualy practised general toleration towards Muslims, but he made them all serfs, or 'unfree peasants' which is basicaly a condition of bondage or modified slavery. Because Sicily was now under Catholic see, the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, (Pope), that means these people were basicaly slaves to Catholicism.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 16th, 2009 at 7:51pm :
He can't say, "Let''s reunite Christendom under our banner"?
'Under our banner'? Isn't that just another way of saying 'under our rule'?
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 19:51:25']
Basically, yes.[/QUOTE]
So he 'was' empire building?
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 19:51:25']
Can you tell me where I've done this?[/QUOTE]
After reading that though again, I now realise that I had misunderstood your meaning. I apologise.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 19:51:25']
And also, let's make sure not to forget that you haven't responded
to the actual argument that I made: It's easy to bracket off your
religious/political dichotomy (which, again, is anachronistic) and just
talk about one Christian civilization coming to the aid of another
Christian civilization when it was threatened by a non-Christian
civilization.[/QUOTE]
But that's not how it happened. Yes, the first move was made by Arslan, but then after a few battles between the two sides, which saw advantage go either way and back again, peace was made between Romanos and Arslan, a treaty was agreed upon and both men came to respect one another, at that point, no Christian civilisation was under threat from Islam. Infact, even if Arslen would have conquered the entire world, Christianity would still not be under threat from Islam because under Isamic rule at the time there was complete freedom of religion. That freedom of religion is actualy something that comes from the Quran ;
"Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine,". It basicaly means let us agree to disagree on matters of religion and live as brothers.
In that respect, Islam had far more to fear from Christianity than vice versa because under Christian rule, there was generaly no such freedom of Religion.
Anyhow, I digress, Romanos was deposed and those that replaced him renaged on the deal and then called in another Christian civilisation to help them wage war upon Arslan, which Urban then turned into a war against Islam and also took the opportunity to gain land in the Byzantine territory for Catholicism.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-11 06:39:22']That evidence of
him gaving ecclesial power to a Western rather than Eastern noble is
pretty strong evidence though, why would he do such a thing if the only
thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines?[/quote]
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 19:51:25']
"The only thing on his mind was helping to defend the Byzantines" is a
far cry from "Empire-building." Decisions and motives
over the course of many years will always be complex. And of course,
Your interpretation requires
a pattern in order to connect the dots, not a single case; without a pattern, this single
case is open to many, many different interpretation.[/QUOTE]
So, in your opinion, what was the actual reason for Urban who bestow those extraordinary prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I?
When Rodger took over Sicily, under Urban's prerogatives he turned the archbishopric of Palermo into a Catholic see. He actualy practised general toleration towards Muslims, but he made them all serfs, or 'unfree peasants' which is basicaly a condition of bondage or modified slavery. Because Sicily was now under Catholic see, the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, (Pope), that means these people were basicaly slaves to Catholicism.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-16 19:51:25']
He can't say, "Let''s reunite Christendom under our banner"?[/QUOTE]
'Under our banner'? Isn't that just another way of saying 'under our rule'?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:00am :
I'm not the one dealing with stereotypes here. The Chrisitian
stererotype of a homosexual is that of a person who is commiting a
major sin, and that Christian stereotype is due to Christian
doctrine.
I can't see a reading on which what you're saying makes any sense.
This is a bit like saying that ornithologists "stereotype" ostriches as
birds -- they think they are birds, they don't stereotype them.
Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that
homosexuality is a type of sin. That doesn't mean that we have
to stereotype gay people as reprobates to be reviled and avoided,
because our understanding of evil is so much more broad and deep than
the political pundits' stereotypes, and our understanding of grace and
hope is so far beyond what they could imagine.
Also, you seem to be evading what I actually wrote rather than responding directly to it.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:00am : As an atheist, I
really do consider much of all religion, including all of the Abrahamic
faiths, to be mythology, so to me, the Christian argument against
homosexuality may as well be that it's wrong because the Norse god of
thunder Thor said is was wrong.
In other words, you can't, or at least won't, defend the argument you made in the first place?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:00am : How on earth is me
telling you my own beliefs and feelings on the matter 'poking fun'? Is
it your belief that everyone that disagrees with the Christian stance
is just 'poking fun?'
No, I think that people who mockingly misrepresent the people they're talking to are "poking fun."
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:00am : But they are not all
subject to moral discourse. Anything that creates a victim is subject
to moral discourse so rape, murder, theft, deceit would naturaly be
subject to moral discourse.
On the one hand, you've completely given up the argument that I'm
responding to. Previously your argument was that a Christian can't say
that anything God created could be evil, but apparently you no longer
want to defend that argument. I suppose that means you've conceded
that point, so we can move on to other things.
On the other hand, I can't see why you would make this claim. What
does it mean to create a victim, why is it that creating a victim is
evil, and why is creating a victim the only kind of evil?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:00:26']
I'm not the one dealing with stereotypes here. The Chrisitian
stererotype of a homosexual is that of a person who is commiting a
major sin, and that Christian stereotype is due to Christian
doctrine.[/quote]
I can't see a reading on which what you're saying makes any sense.
This is a bit like saying that ornithologists "stereotype" ostriches as
birds -- they think they [i]are[/i] birds, they don't stereotype them.
Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that
homosexuality [i]is[/i] a type of sin. That doesn't mean that we have
to stereotype gay people as reprobates to be reviled and avoided,
because our understanding of evil is so much more broad and deep than
the political pundits' stereotypes, and our understanding of grace and
hope is so far beyond what they could imagine.
Also, you seem to be evading what I actually wrote rather than responding directly to it.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:00:26']As an atheist, I
really do consider much of all religion, including all of the Abrahamic
faiths, to be mythology, so to me, the Christian argument against
homosexuality may as well be that it's wrong because the Norse god of
thunder Thor said is was wrong.[/quote]
In other words, you can't, or at least won't, defend the argument you made in the first place?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:00:26']How on earth is me
telling you my own beliefs and feelings on the matter 'poking fun'? Is
it your belief that everyone that disagrees with the Christian stance
is just 'poking fun?'[/quote]
No, I think that people who mockingly misrepresent the people they're talking to are "poking fun."
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:00:26']But they are not all
subject to moral discourse. Anything that creates a victim is subject
to moral discourse so rape, murder, theft, deceit would naturaly be
subject to moral discourse.[/quote]
On the one hand, you've completely given up the argument that I'm
responding to. Previously your argument was that a Christian can't say
that anything God created could be evil, but apparently you no longer
want to defend that argument. I suppose that means you've conceded
that point, so we can move on to other things.
On the other hand, I can't see why you would make this claim. What
does it mean to create a victim, why is it that creating a victim is
evil, and why is creating a victim the only kind of evil?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:01am : So are you claiming that the belief in God creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the belief in the Fall of Man due to something happening in the Garden of Eden that would morally affect all of humanity from then on isn't essentialy down to the priviliging of one very specific way of reading texts?
It's more textured than that, but basically the answer is yes, obviously. The difference is that I'm not denying that different ways of reading texts exist and that you might not be committed to the same type of text-reading that I am.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:01am : No, but you do have be an adherent to an Abrahamic form of religion in order to believe that the 'God' in Genesis exists and that Genesis should be read literaly.
Again, it's not clear how this follows the flow of the arguments at hand. Let's get back on track. You said that evolutionary theory contradicts the Biblical claim that people came from the earth. I pointed out there are very reasonable readings of the text on which evolutionary theory does nothing but support the Biblical claim.
The only reading on which they are in conflict is the so-called "literal" reading. But this is only a problem if we think that "literal" interpretation is the same as true, or good, or wise, or faithful interpretation. In this case, however, that is a pretty dubious way to look at things, because what people today call "literal" interpretation is nothing other than modern positivism. And of course we can't expect that an ancient text should have to be in tune with the canons of a type of interpretation that wouldn't exist until millennia later, particularly when in our own time positivism has been considered laughable among scholars for quite some time now: Neither people in the authors' time nor people in our own regard "literal" interpretation as the universal way of reading texts, so I can't see why we should need to impose it upon this text.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:01am : To that, I can partway agree. If it wasn't for the Neolithic Revolution, we wouldn't have the overpopulation problems and everything that comes with like man made pollution that we have today. But that could hardly be caused by people alienating themselves from a God that people wouldn't develop a notion of for another several thousand years.
That is, unless we don't have to have a comprehensive belief in something for it to exist? Didn't the Earth revolve around the Sun even while Greek cosmology told us this would be impossible? And similarly, weren't we still able to know true things about the Earth and about the Sun before we understood that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit? Couldn't we similarly know true things about God before later conceptions would develop? (And, still, what you're writing in this paragraph smacks of the old history-of-religions, which is, well, not particularly convincing.)
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:01:57'] So are you claiming that the belief in God creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the belief in the Fall of Man due to something happening in the Garden of Eden that would morally affect all of humanity from then on isn't essentialy down to the priviliging of one very specific way of reading texts?[/quote] It's more textured than that, but basically the answer is yes, obviously. The difference is that I'm not denying that different ways of reading texts exist and that you might not be committed to the same type of text-reading that I am.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:01:57']No, but you do have be an adherent to an Abrahamic form of religion in order to believe that the 'God' in Genesis exists and that Genesis should be read literaly.[/quote] Again, it's not clear how this follows the flow of the arguments at hand. Let's get back on track. You said that evolutionary theory contradicts the Biblical claim that people came from the earth. I pointed out there are very reasonable readings of the text on which evolutionary theory does nothing but support the Biblical claim.
The only reading on which they are in conflict is the so-called "literal" reading. But this is only a problem if we think that "literal" interpretation is the same as true, or good, or wise, or faithful interpretation. In this case, however, that is a pretty dubious way to look at things, because what people today call "literal" interpretation is nothing other than modern positivism. And of course we can't expect that an ancient text should have to be in tune with the canons of a type of interpretation that wouldn't exist until millennia later, particularly when in our own time positivism has been considered laughable among scholars for quite some time now: Neither people in the authors' time nor people in our own regard "literal" interpretation as the universal way of reading texts, so I can't see why we should need to impose it upon this text.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:01:57']To that, I can partway agree. If it wasn't for the Neolithic Revolution, we wouldn't have the overpopulation problems and everything that comes with like man made pollution that we have today. But that could hardly be caused by people alienating themselves from a God that people wouldn't develop a notion of for another several thousand years.[/QUOTE] That is, unless we don't have to have a comprehensive belief in something for it to exist? Didn't the Earth revolve around the Sun even while Greek cosmology told us this would be impossible? And similarly, weren't we still able to know [i]true[/i] things about the Earth and about the Sun before we understood that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit? Couldn't we similarly know true things about [i]God[/i] before later conceptions would develop? (And, still, what you're writing in this paragraph smacks of the old history-of-religions, which is, well, not particularly convincing.)
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:05am : So he 'was' empire building?
No. Reconquering what had been taken from one civilization (i.e., the
civilization left in the ruins of the Roman Empire), not out for
conquest to establish a new empire.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:05am : But that's not how it
happened. Yes, the first move was made by Arslan...
Okay, but let's take one thing at a time, because right now we've got a
moving target. Right now we're talking about whether your distinction
between the Political and the Religious is materially relevant to the
issue before us. You say you want to make the distinction, but I
respond that it's anachronistic and even if we do use the distinction
it's not significant to the bigger question at hand because it can be
bracketed off.
Once we settle that, we can ask whether the Byzantines' call for aid
was in fact defensive. We've already discussed this issue at length
but it eventually fell out of the conversation, so I'd rather revisit
that discussion and pick up where we left off than start up something
entirely new.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:05am : So, in your opinion,
what was the actual reason for Urban who bestow those extraordinary
prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I?
I don't know; I don't claim to be a professional historian. You're
talking about the Norman re/conquest of Sicily, which occurred before
Urban started the Crusades. Roger (and somebody before him, whose name
escapes me at the moment -- Robert maybe) takes Sicily, and just before
Urban's death (which was, obviously, after the Crusade was already
started), Urban grants him title and powers as a type of papal
ambassador. Urban didn't call for a Crusade and consequently tell
Roger to re/conquer Sicily. The Norman re/conquest of Sicily was
something already going on.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:05am : When Rodger took over
Sicily, under Urban's prerogatives he turned the archbishopric of
Palermo into a Catholic see.
This is more from Wikipedia, which is making it hard for me to see the
actual context of what you're writing in terms of our discussion.
(Interestingly, it also looks like Wikipedia was actually plagiarizing
another source.) Yes, somebody had consolidated political power in
Sicily who was favorable to Western Christianity and the Pope gave him
the title and privileges of a special political ruler who was favorable
to Western Christianity. Roger didn't end Eastern Christianity there,
nor was his re/conquest even started as part of the Crusades.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:05am : He actualy practised
general toleration towards Muslims, but he made them all serfs, or
'unfree peasants' which is basicaly a condition of bondage or modified
slavery. Because Sicily was now under Catholic see, the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Rome, (Pope), that means these people were basicaly
slaves to Catholicism.
Okay, first, serfdom was incredibly different from slavery. It was a
million times more materially bleak than modern bourgeois life, for
sure, but it wasn't slavery. You weren't owned. You didn't own your
land, but you were not owned. Serfdom meant that both you and your
land's owner were bound to live up to the terms of the contract, which
meant that both parties had rights from and responsibilities to each
other. Most of the people in the UK are more enslaved than this.
The subject you're specifically addressing here is the Norman
re/conquest of Southern Italy. Generally, those in the country became
serfs, and those in the city were not. This makes sense, because
serfdom was all about a contractual connection between landowners and
those who work owned land. But what's important here is that if we're
talking about the re/conquest of Souther Italy and the serfdom of some
Sicilian Muslims then we're talking specifically about the actions of
the Normans, not of Pope Urban, so this in itself doesn't offer much
insight into the mind of the Pope himself.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:05am : 'Under our
banner'? Isn't that just another way of saying 'under our rule'?
Yes, exactly.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 08:05:27']So he 'was' empire building?[/quote]
No. Reconquering what had been taken from one civilization (i.e., the
civilization left in the ruins of the Roman Empire), not out for
conquest to establish a new empire.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 08:05:27']But that's not how it
happened. Yes, the first move was made by Arslan...[/quote]
Okay, but let's take one thing at a time, because right now we've got a
moving target. Right now we're talking about whether your distinction
between the Political and the Religious is materially relevant to the
issue before us. You say you want to make the distinction, but I
respond that it's anachronistic and even if we do use the distinction
it's not significant to the bigger question at hand because it can be
bracketed off.
Once we settle that, we can ask whether the Byzantines' call for aid
was in fact defensive. We've already discussed this issue at length
but it eventually fell out of the conversation, so I'd rather revisit
that discussion and pick up where we left off than start up something
entirely new.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 08:05:27']So, in your opinion,
what was the actual reason for Urban who bestow those extraordinary
prerogatives upon the Norman ruler Roger I?[/quote]
I don't know; I don't claim to be a professional historian. You're
talking about the Norman re/conquest of Sicily, which occurred before
Urban started the Crusades. Roger (and somebody before him, whose name
escapes me at the moment -- Robert maybe) takes Sicily, and just before
Urban's death (which was, obviously, after the Crusade was already
started), Urban grants him title and powers as a type of papal
ambassador. Urban didn't call for a Crusade and consequently tell
Roger to re/conquer Sicily. The Norman re/conquest of Sicily was
something already going on.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 08:05:27']When Rodger took over
Sicily, under Urban's prerogatives he turned the archbishopric of
Palermo into a Catholic see.[/quote]
This is more from Wikipedia, which is making it hard for me to see the
actual context of what you're writing in terms of our discussion.
(Interestingly, it also looks like Wikipedia was actually plagiarizing
another source.) Yes, somebody had consolidated political power in
Sicily who was favorable to Western Christianity and the Pope gave him
the title and privileges of a special political ruler who was favorable
to Western Christianity. Roger didn't end Eastern Christianity there,
nor was his re/conquest even started as part of the Crusades.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 08:05:27']He actualy practised
general toleration towards Muslims, but he made them all serfs, or
'unfree peasants' which is basicaly a condition of bondage or modified
slavery. Because Sicily was now under Catholic see, the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Rome, (Pope), that means these people were basicaly
slaves to Catholicism.[/quote]
Okay, first, serfdom was incredibly different from slavery. It was a
million times more materially bleak than modern bourgeois life, for
sure, but it wasn't slavery. You weren't owned. You didn't own your
land, but you were not owned. Serfdom meant that both you and your
land's owner were bound to live up to the terms of the contract, which
meant that both parties had rights from and responsibilities to each
other. Most of the people in the UK are more enslaved than this.
The subject you're specifically addressing here is the Norman
re/conquest of Southern Italy. Generally, those in the country became
serfs, and those in the city were not. This makes sense, because
serfdom was all about a contractual connection between landowners and
those who work owned land. But what's important here is that if we're
talking about the re/conquest of Souther Italy and the serfdom of some
Sicilian Muslims then we're talking specifically about the actions of
the Normans, not of Pope Urban, so this in itself doesn't offer much
insight into the mind of the Pope himself.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 08:05:27']'Under our
banner'? Isn't that just another way of saying 'under our rule'?[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:42am :
I can't see a reading on which what you're saying makes any sense.
This is a bit like saying that ornithologists "stereotype" ostriches as
birds -- they think they are birds, they don't stereotype them.
Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that
homosexuality is a type of sin. That doesn't mean that we have
to stereotype gay people as reprobates to be reviled and avoided,
because our understanding of evil is so much more broad and deep than
the political pundits' stereotypes, and our understanding of grace and
hope is so far beyond what they could imagine.
Also, you seem to be evading what I actually wrote rather than responding directly to it.
As far as I am aware, I'm simply reacting to what you've written, what part of what you wrote are you claiming I'm not responding to?
I'm afraid I don't quite follow your ornothologist analogy. Are you saying that someone looking at a bird who 'knows' they are looking at a bird is similar to someone who looks at a homosexual 'knows' they are looking at a sinner?
You said that 'Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that homosexuality is a type of sin.' Is that how Christianity still view's homosexuality or not? Or, alternatively, what are your own personal thoughts on this, do 'you' think that homosexuality is a sin or not.
I'm asking for plain English here instead of skirting around the issue with strange analogies.
Does Christianity single out homosexuals as sinners and does it promote to it's members that all homosexuals 'are' sinners?
Or are you talking about more of a case of we are 'all' sinners, homosexuals included, but they shouldn't be singled out?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:42am :
In other words, you can't, or at least won't, defend the argument you made in the first place?
Sorry, you've lost me again, what argument are you claiming I'm making? Because I'm pretty sure I'm making the argument that calling homosexuals 'sinners' because of a sexual orientation that they din't have a choice in is a form of abuse.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:42am :
No, I think that people who mockingly misrepresent the people they're talking to are "poking fun."
As far as I'm aware, I'm not mockingly misrepresenting you, I'm simply trying to understand your point of view while at the same time helping you understand my point of view.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:00am : But they are not all
subject to moral discourse. Anything that creates a victim is subject
to moral discourse so rape, murder, theft, deceit would naturaly be
subject to moral discourse.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:42am :
On the one hand, you've completely given up the argument that I'm
responding to. Previously your argument was that a Christian can't say
that anything God created could be evil, but apparently you no longer
want to defend that argument. I suppose that means you've conceded
that point, so we can move on to other things.
What's to defend? I simply asked 'if' God existed in the Christian sense, and if he created people and animals to be homosexual, why would God consider homosexuality to be abhorrent? Did God make a mistake by creating them with this sexual orientation or has he purposely created something that is abhorrent to himself? If the latter is the case, then the next obvious quiestion is 'why' would God create something that is abhorrent to himself? I'm trying to understand the logic behind labeling homosexuals as 'sinners'.
You see, this all leads up to another question. If God exists, are you sure that the Christian notion of God's abhorrence towards homosexuality is actualy correct?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:42am :
On the other hand, I can't see why you would make this claim. What
does it mean to create a victim, why is it that creating a victim is
evil, and why is creating a victim the only kind of evil?
A 'victim' is someone who is harmed by or made to suffer, either physicaly or mentaly, from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition.
To 'purposly' create a victim from an innocent is morally abhorrent to most of us which is why creating a victim from an innocent is generaly classed as evil. So rape, murder, theft and deceit would all be considered as 'creating a victim' and inherently 'evil' but homosexuality is something completely different as it is simply a form of love between individuals. Which is why I asked why you seem to be associating homosexuality with rape, murder, theft and deceit, to which you answered that they are all 'subjects of moral discourse' which simply means something to be discussed with regards to morals. That suggests, that the no actual decision on a moral stance on rape, murder, theft and deceit or homosexuality has yet been arrived at.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:42:33']
I can't see a reading on which what you're saying makes any sense.
This is a bit like saying that ornithologists "stereotype" ostriches as
birds -- they think they [i]are[/i] birds, they don't stereotype them.
Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that
homosexuality [i]is[/i] a type of sin. That doesn't mean that we have
to stereotype gay people as reprobates to be reviled and avoided,
because our understanding of evil is so much more broad and deep than
the political pundits' stereotypes, and our understanding of grace and
hope is so far beyond what they could imagine.
Also, you seem to be evading what I actually wrote rather than responding directly to it.[/QUOTE]
As far as I am aware, I'm simply reacting to what you've written, what part of what you wrote are you claiming I'm not responding to?
I'm afraid I don't quite follow your ornothologist analogy. Are you saying that someone looking at a bird who 'knows' they are looking at a bird is similar to someone who looks at a homosexual 'knows' they are looking at a sinner?
You said that 'Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that homosexuality is a type of sin.' Is that how Christianity still view's homosexuality or not? Or, alternatively, what are your own personal thoughts on this, do 'you' think that homosexuality is a sin or not.
I'm asking for plain English here instead of skirting around the issue with strange analogies.
Does Christianity single out homosexuals as sinners and does it promote to it's members that all homosexuals 'are' sinners?
Or are you talking about more of a case of we are 'all' sinners, homosexuals included, but they shouldn't be singled out?
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:42:33']
In other words, you can't, or at least won't, defend the argument you made in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you've lost me again, what argument are you claiming I'm making? Because I'm pretty sure I'm making the argument that calling homosexuals 'sinners' because of a sexual orientation that they din't have a choice in is a form of abuse.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:42:33']
No, I think that people who mockingly misrepresent the people they're talking to are "poking fun."[/QUOTE]
As far as I'm aware, I'm not mockingly misrepresenting you, I'm simply trying to understand your point of view while at the same time helping you understand my point of view.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:00:26']But they are not all
subject to moral discourse. Anything that creates a victim is subject
to moral discourse so rape, murder, theft, deceit would naturaly be
subject to moral discourse.[/quote]
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:42:33']
On the one hand, you've completely given up the argument that I'm
responding to. Previously your argument was that a Christian can't say
that anything God created could be evil, but apparently you no longer
want to defend that argument. I suppose that means you've conceded
that point, so we can move on to other things.[/QUOTE]
What's to defend? I simply asked 'if' God existed in the Christian sense, and if he created people and animals to be homosexual, why would God consider homosexuality to be abhorrent? Did God make a mistake by creating them with this sexual orientation or has he purposely created something that is abhorrent to himself? If the latter is the case, then the next obvious quiestion is 'why' would God create something that is abhorrent to himself? I'm trying to understand the logic behind labeling homosexuals as 'sinners'.
You see, this all leads up to another question. If God exists, are you sure that the Christian notion of God's abhorrence towards homosexuality is actualy correct?
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:42:33']
On the other hand, I can't see why you would make this claim. What
does it mean to create a victim, why is it that creating a victim is
evil, and why is creating a victim the only kind of evil? [/QUOTE]
A 'victim' is someone who is harmed by or made to suffer, either physicaly or mentaly, from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition.
To 'purposly' create a victim from an innocent is morally abhorrent to most of us which is why creating a victim from an innocent is generaly classed as evil. So rape, murder, theft and deceit would all be considered as 'creating a victim' and inherently 'evil' but homosexuality is something completely different as it is simply a form of love between individuals. Which is why I asked why you seem to be associating homosexuality with rape, murder, theft and deceit, to which you answered that they are all 'subjects of moral discourse' which simply means something to be discussed with regards to morals. That suggests, that the no actual decision on a moral stance on rape, murder, theft and deceit or homosexuality has yet been arrived at.
Subsequently, I put it to you that a general public stance on rape, murder, theft and deceit 'has' actualy been arrived at which is that they are 'immoral' because they all create victims while there is still much debate continuing on whether homosexuality is immoral or not, so I can't see how you can associate homosexuality with rape, murder, theft and deceit.
Furthermore, I think it is actualy immoral to publicly associate homosexuality with such 'victim creating' crimes as it is verging on 'slanderous', which again is something that creates a 'victim'.
My own view is that homosexuality has been 'wrongly' labeled as 'immoral' by some on the basis of 'because a hypothetical (and in my view, fictional) God says so'.
And just so we're clear here, that's not me "poking fun" at you or your religion, that's just me giving you my point of view in the hope that you can understand that point of view.
I never said that creating a victim is the only kind of evil, (although I must admit it's hard to think of a victimless form of evil) only that I couldn't see any evil in two consenting adults of the same sex declaring their love for one another as it has no affect whatsover on anyone else.
Let me ask you another question. I take it you're familiar with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and their stance that 'God hates fags' (their words, not mine) and I'm assuming (although I admit that I may be wrong here as I don't personally know you) that like most other folks, you find them to be a pretty repulsive and distasteful bunch. But if you consider that homosexualty is a sin, aren't you effectively agreeing with their stance?
Subsequently, I put it to you that a general public stance on rape, murder, theft and deceit 'has' actualy been arrived at which is that they are 'immoral' because they all create victims while there is still much debate continuing on whether homosexuality is immoral or not, so I can't see how you can associate homosexuality with rape, murder, theft and deceit.
Furthermore, I think it is actualy immoral to publicly associate homosexuality with such 'victim creating' crimes as it is verging on 'slanderous', which again is something that creates a 'victim'.
My own view is that homosexuality has been 'wrongly' labeled as 'immoral' by some on the basis of 'because a hypothetical (and in my view, fictional) God says so'.
And just so we're clear here, that's not me "poking fun" at you or your religion, that's just me giving you my point of view in the hope that you can understand that point of view.
I never said that creating a victim is the only kind of evil, (although I must admit it's hard to think of a victimless form of evil) only that I couldn't see any evil in two consenting adults of the same sex declaring their love for one another as it has no affect whatsover on anyone else.
Let me ask you another question. I take it you're familiar with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and their stance that 'God hates fags' (their words, not mine) and I'm assuming (although I admit that I may be wrong here as I don't personally know you) that like most other folks, you find them to be a pretty repulsive and distasteful bunch. But if you consider that homosexualty is a sin, aren't you effectively agreeing with their stance?
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:59am : It's more textured than that, but basically the answer is yes, obviously. The difference is that I'm not denying that different ways of reading texts exist and that you might not be committed to the same type of text-reading that I am.
Which is basicaly my stance as well, that 'you' might not be committed to the same type of text-reading that 'I' am, in fact, I can hardly be denying that there are different ways of reading the texts if I am putting forward a 'different' hypothesis for the meaning of the texts to the general Christian view.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:59am :
You said that evolutionary theory contradicts the Biblical claim that people came from the earth. I pointed out there are very reasonable readings of the text on which evolutionary theory does nothing but support the Biblical claim.
No, I said that evolutionary theory, as well as the findings of the Genographic project, contradicts the Biblical claim that people originated in the area specified in the Bible and that we have been around for a lot longer than the Ussher Chronology states.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:59am :
The only reading on which they are in conflict is the so-called "literal" reading. But this is only a problem if we think that "literal" interpretation is the same as true, or good, or wise, or faithful interpretation. In this case, however, that is a pretty dubious way to look at things, because what people today call "literal" interpretation is nothing other than modern positivism. And of course we can't expect that an ancient text should have to be in tune with the canons of a type of interpretation that wouldn't exist until millennia later, particularly when in our own time positivism has been considered laughable among scholars for quite some time now: Neither people in the authors' time nor people in our own regard "literal" interpretation as the universal way of reading texts, so I can't see why we should need to impose it upon this text.
But I haven't done that, (although I may question the notion of 'true' in that context).
All I've said is that the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is generaly regarded among Christians as the story of the 'creation of man', but I don't think that that's how it was originaly intended, because to me it seems quite obvious that it is the story of how we developed from hunter/gatherers into agricultualists and how that affected the religion of the time and place 'after' we had already been around for thousands of years.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 1:59am :
That is, unless we don't have to have a comprehensive belief in something for it to exist? Didn't the Earth revolve around the Sun even while Greek cosmology told us this would be impossible? And similarly, weren't we still able to know true things about the Earth and about the Sun before we understood that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit? Couldn't we similarly know true things about God before later conceptions would develop? (And, still, what you're writing in this paragraph smacks of the old history-of-religions, which is, well, not particularly convincing.)
Well that's simply a difference of opinion caused by different beliefs, personaly I'm of the belief that religion is purely man made and that what you regard as something that alludes to a real 'Christian God' is simply a notion that has developed over millenia.
But that should naturaly read as 'not particularly convincing to you' because everyone is not of the same opinion as you.
But, again, I don't really understand your analogy.
Christianity for a long time applied the same cosmology as the Greeks, that the sun rotated around the earth, but in their case it was based on texts within the Bible that suggested that the earth was stationary, but was proven to be incorrect.
My point is, Christianity takes many of it's notions 'from' the Bible, some of which have been shown to be incorrect, thus facilitating a change in Christian notions. Isn't this a case of 'moving the goalposts'? In the same way that Christian notions of cosmology changed, Christian notions of evolution are currently changing, many Christians still will not entertain the notion of evolution or our origins in Africa at all, insisting that we were literaly 'created' from clay in the Garden of Eden located in the Middle East, but many others are now accepting that we evolved and that the story of Adam and Eve is metaphorical.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:59:09']It's more textured than that, but basically the answer is yes, obviously. The difference is that I'm not denying that different ways of reading texts exist and that you might not be committed to the same type of text-reading that I am.[/QUOTE]
Which is basicaly my stance as well, that 'you' might not be committed to the same type of text-reading that 'I' am, in fact, I can hardly be denying that there are different ways of reading the texts if I am putting forward a 'different' hypothesis for the meaning of the texts to the general Christian view.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:59:09']
You said that evolutionary theory contradicts the Biblical claim that people came from the earth. I pointed out there are very reasonable readings of the text on which evolutionary theory does nothing but support the Biblical claim.[/QUOTE]
No, I said that evolutionary theory, as well as the findings of the Genographic project, contradicts the Biblical claim that people originated in the area specified in the Bible and that we have been around for a lot longer than the Ussher Chronology states.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:59:09']
The only reading on which they are in conflict is the so-called "literal" reading. But this is only a problem if we think that "literal" interpretation is the same as true, or good, or wise, or faithful interpretation. In this case, however, that is a pretty dubious way to look at things, because what people today call "literal" interpretation is nothing other than modern positivism. And of course we can't expect that an ancient text should have to be in tune with the canons of a type of interpretation that wouldn't exist until millennia later, particularly when in our own time positivism has been considered laughable among scholars for quite some time now: Neither people in the authors' time nor people in our own regard "literal" interpretation as the universal way of reading texts, so I can't see why we should need to impose it upon this text.[/QUOTE]
But I haven't done that, (although I may question the notion of 'true' in that context).
All I've said is that the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is generaly regarded among Christians as the story of the 'creation of man', but I don't think that that's how it was originaly intended, because to me it seems quite obvious that it is the story of how we developed from hunter/gatherers into agricultualists and how that affected the religion of the time and place 'after' we had already been around for thousands of years.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 01:59:09']
That is, unless we don't have to have a comprehensive belief in something for it to exist? Didn't the Earth revolve around the Sun even while Greek cosmology told us this would be impossible? And similarly, weren't we still able to know [i]true[/i] things about the Earth and about the Sun before we understood that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit? Couldn't we similarly know true things about [i]God[/i] before later conceptions would develop? (And, still, what you're writing in this paragraph smacks of the old history-of-religions, which is, well, not particularly convincing.) [/QUOTE]Well that's simply a difference of opinion caused by different beliefs, personaly I'm of the belief that religion is purely man made and that what you regard as something that alludes to a real 'Christian God' is simply a notion that has developed over millenia.
But that should naturaly read as 'not particularly convincing to you' because everyone is not of the same opinion as you.
But, again, I don't really understand your analogy.
Christianity for a long time applied the same cosmology as the Greeks, that the sun rotated around the earth, but in their case it was based on texts within the Bible that suggested that the earth was stationary, but was proven to be incorrect.
My point is, Christianity takes many of it's notions 'from' the Bible, some of which have been shown to be incorrect, thus facilitating a change in Christian notions. Isn't this a case of 'moving the goalposts'? In the same way that Christian notions of cosmology changed, Christian notions of evolution are currently changing, many Christians still will not entertain the notion of evolution or our origins in Africa at all, insisting that we were literaly 'created' from clay in the Garden of Eden located in the Middle East, but many others are now accepting that we evolved and that the story of Adam and Eve is metaphorical.
You see, I think the problem here is that your definition of 'truth' differs to mine. My definition refers to something we cannot possibly know for certain until it has been deduced from solid empirical evidence, whereas you seem to be talking about knowing 'true things' about about a God that we cannot possibly say for certain exists or not. In that respect, I cannot see how we can label anything about the notion of God as 'true'. All religion relies on 'faith' or 'belief without evidence', although, to be fair, it may just be that we are operating on different paradigms here.
You see, I think the problem here is that your definition of 'truth' differs to mine. My definition refers to something we cannot possibly know for certain until it has been deduced from solid empirical evidence, whereas you seem to be talking about knowing 'true things' about about a God that we cannot possibly say for certain exists or not. In that respect, I cannot see how we can label anything about the notion of God as 'true'. All religion relies on 'faith' or 'belief without evidence', although, to be fair, it may just be that we are operating on different paradigms here.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 3:09am :
No. Reconquering what had been taken from one civilization (i.e., the
civilization left in the ruins of the Roman Empire), not out for
conquest to establish a new empire.
But surely that amounts to the same thing? If you are attempting to regain the lands of an extinct empire under one banner, then you are establishing a new empire.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 3:09am :
Okay, but let's take one thing at a time, because right now we've got a
moving target. Right now we're talking about whether your distinction
between the Political and the Religious is materially relevant to the
issue before us. You say you want to make the distinction, but I
respond that it's anachronistic and even if we do use the distinction
it's not significant to the bigger question at hand because it can be
bracketed off.
Explain what you mean by anachronistic, because that could mean several things in this context.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 3:09am :
Once we settle that, we can ask whether the Byzantines' call for aid
was in fact defensive. We've already discussed this issue at length
but it eventually fell out of the conversation, so I'd rather revisit
that discussion and pick up where we left off than start up something
entirely new.
Well I have already stated that the Byzantines called for help against Arslan 'after' they had renaged on the treaty that was in place. That, to me, makes them the aggressors, aided and abbeted by the Catholics, who later turned on the Byzantines as well.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 3:09am :
I don't know; I don't claim to be a professional historian. You're
talking about the Norman re/conquest of Sicily, which occurred before
Urban started the Crusades. Roger (and somebody before him, whose name
escapes me at the moment -- Robert maybe) takes Sicily, and just before
Urban's death (which was, obviously, after the Crusade was already
started), Urban grants him title and powers as a type of papal
ambassador. Urban didn't call for a Crusade and consequently tell
Roger to re/conquer Sicily. The Norman re/conquest of Sicily was
something already going on.
Yes, I know all this. And it's that fact that Urban only gave Rodger these powers 'after' the Crusades had started, rather than after the conquest of Sicily but before the Crusades, as a type of papal ambassador, that makes me suspicious.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 3:09am :
Yes, somebody had consolidated political power in
Sicily who was favorable to Western Christianity and the Pope gave him
the title and privileges of a special political ruler who was favorable
to Western Christianity. Roger didn't end Eastern Christianity there,
nor was his re/conquest even started as part of the Crusades.
No, but as you've just said, his power to make his conquered land Catholic was only given to him 'after' the Crusades had started, which, to me, suggests that part of Urban's plan when he started the Crusades was to Catholicise as much land as he could.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 03:09:43']
No. Reconquering what had been taken from one civilization (i.e., the
civilization left in the ruins of the Roman Empire), not out for
conquest to establish a new empire.[/QUOTE]
But surely that amounts to the same thing? If you are attempting to regain the lands of an extinct empire under one banner, then you are establishing a new empire.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 03:09:43']
Okay, but let's take one thing at a time, because right now we've got a
moving target. Right now we're talking about whether your distinction
between the Political and the Religious is materially relevant to the
issue before us. You say you want to make the distinction, but I
respond that it's anachronistic and even if we do use the distinction
it's not significant to the bigger question at hand because it can be
bracketed off.[/QUOTE]
Explain what you mean by anachronistic, because that could mean several things in this context.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 03:09:43']
Once we settle that, we can ask whether the Byzantines' call for aid
was in fact defensive. We've already discussed this issue at length
but it eventually fell out of the conversation, so I'd rather revisit
that discussion and pick up where we left off than start up something
entirely new.[/QUOTE]
Well I have already stated that the Byzantines called for help against Arslan 'after' they had renaged on the treaty that was in place. That, to me, makes them the aggressors, aided and abbeted by the Catholics, who later turned on the Byzantines as well.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 03:09:43']
I don't know; I don't claim to be a professional historian. You're
talking about the Norman re/conquest of Sicily, which occurred before
Urban started the Crusades. Roger (and somebody before him, whose name
escapes me at the moment -- Robert maybe) takes Sicily, and just before
Urban's death (which was, obviously, after the Crusade was already
started), Urban grants him title and powers as a type of papal
ambassador. Urban didn't call for a Crusade and consequently tell
Roger to re/conquer Sicily. The Norman re/conquest of Sicily was
something already going on.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know all this. And it's that fact that Urban only gave Rodger these powers 'after' the Crusades had started, rather than after the conquest of Sicily but before the Crusades, as a type of papal ambassador, that makes me suspicious.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 03:09:43']
Yes, somebody had consolidated political power in
Sicily who was favorable to Western Christianity and the Pope gave him
the title and privileges of a special political ruler who was favorable
to Western Christianity. Roger didn't end Eastern Christianity there,
nor was his re/conquest even started as part of the Crusades.[/QUOTE]
No, but as you've just said, his power to make his conquered land Catholic was only given to him 'after' the Crusades had started, which, to me, suggests that part of Urban's plan when he started the Crusades was to Catholicise as much land as he could.
Stanley151 wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 3:09am :
Okay, first, serfdom was incredibly different from slavery. It was a
million times more materially bleak than modern bourgeois life, for
sure, but it wasn't slavery. You weren't owned. You didn't own your
land, but you were not owned. Serfdom meant that both you and your
land's owner were bound to live up to the terms of the contract, which
meant that both parties had rights from and responsibilities to each
other. Most of the people in the UK are more enslaved than this.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serf This definition has two meanings, One that says that serfs were 'attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another', in other words, that serfs were treated as property of whoever 'owned' the land, and the other just basicaly says that it means 'slave'.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71 924&dict=CALD This definition, like the earlier one says that serfs were the 'property' of the person who owned that land, which is the very definition of a 'slave', a person who is considered to be someone's property.
Finaly, a word about Wikipedia as you seem to have an obsession with my using it.
As I've mentioned before, I only use Wikipedia if it is in agreement with my own findings, I simply find it a useful tool for finding information gathered together and written in plain English, but I never quote Wikipedia if I'm not sure that what I'm quoting is correct or not.
[QUOTE u='Stanley151' d='2009-10-18 03:09:43']
Okay, first, serfdom was incredibly different from slavery. It was a
million times more materially bleak than modern bourgeois life, for
sure, but it wasn't slavery. You weren't owned. You didn't own your
land, but you were not owned. Serfdom meant that both you and your
land's owner were bound to live up to the terms of the contract, which
meant that both parties had rights from and responsibilities to each
other. Most of the people in the UK are more enslaved than this.[/QUOTE]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serf This definition has two meanings, One that says that serfs were 'attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another', in other words, that serfs were treated as property of whoever 'owned' the land, and the other just basicaly says that it means 'slave'.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serf
This definition says the word 'serf' comes from the Latin 'servus' which means 'slave', as does the Oxford dictionary;
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=serf&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71924&dict=CALD
This definition, like the earlier one says that serfs were the 'property' of the person who owned that land, which is the very definition of a 'slave', a person who is considered to be someone's property.
Finaly, a word about Wikipedia as you seem to have an obsession with my using it.
As I've mentioned before, I only use Wikipedia if it is in agreement with my own findings, I simply find it a useful tool for finding information gathered together and written in plain English, but I never quote Wikipedia if I'm not sure that what I'm quoting is correct or not.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 8:54am : You see, I think the
problem here is that your definition of 'truth' differs to mine. My
definition refers to something we cannot possibly know for certain
until it has been deduced from solid empirical evidence, whereas you
seem to be talking about knowing 'true things' about about a God that
we cannot possibly say for certain exists or not. In that respect, I
cannot see how we can label anything about the notion of God as 'true'.
All religion relies on 'faith' or 'belief without evidence', although,
to be fair, it may just be that we are operating on different paradigms
here.
Hmm there are many things going on here.
1. This is less an issue of truth than it is knowledge. Where you
differ is that you don't think we can know true things about
God. So this is an issue of knowledge, not truth.
2. For you, knowledge is intellectual recognition of quantitative data
about an external object. This was the modern ideal which was
developed into positivism. But this is just one mode of knowledge.
For instance, I know my wife and my friend Stuart at work, but
knowledge there means that I have a certain kind of interactional
relationship with them. I know how to use a hammer, but that means
that I have a certain kind of interactional relationship with hammers.
I know what the color red looks like, and that means that I have a
certain kind of interactional relationship with red.
In contrast, when I say that I know that a falling mass accelerates
toward Earth at around 9.8 m/s^2, I'm not talking about an
interactional relationship. Instead, I'm talking about information I
have learned by studying, which serves as a tool in the other kinds of
"knowing" I mentioned above. What is important here is that the other
kinds of knowing precede this kind of knowing and, even more
significantly, the whole purpose of this kind of knowing is to serve
the other kinds of knowing.
3. Even when we situate that latter kind of knowledge ("knowing that
P," epistemological knowledge) within the broader context of knowledge
(i.e., the other knowledges that it exists to serve), however, there
are further clarifications to be made. You identify this kind of
knowledge exclusively with knowledge that "has been deduced from solid
empirical evidence." But there is a fascinating twist to this simple
empiricism.
What does "solid empirical evidence" mean? No need for a perfectly
precise answer, but we certainly know that we're looking for
information that can be quantified. We want to know mass, volume,
etc. We're looking for numbers. The real drive behind this is
that we want this evidence to be mathematical. We want geometry,
arithmetic, calculus, etc - that's real evidence.
But this is where we reach our quandary. The problem here is that the
truths of mathematics are obviously not empirical truths. Anyone who
has done any amount of work in mathematics or the philosophy of
mathematics knows this without thinking twice. So deduction from solid
empirical evidence ultimately depends on truths which were not deduced
from solid empirical evidence! And what that means is that not all
knowledge "is deduced from solid empirical evidence" -- in fact,
deduction (or, really, induction) from empirical evidence relies on
prior knowledge that we already have.
The history of philosophy bears this out. Descartes's mathematical
rationalism spawned Locke's simple empiricism, which was turned on its
head by Berkeley, confused and sophisticated by Hume, and completely
replaced by Kant. I won't rehearse the story beyond that, but suffice
it to say that a simple empiricism just does not stand on its own.
4. In fact there are many means of knowing apart from induction from
empirical data. I mentioned mathematics, and certainly I don't know
that murder and rape are evil because of empirical studies. What about
my knowledge of Shakespeare's plays, or PT Anderson's films? Why do I
believe that my wife loves me, or even that the sun will rise
tomorrow? These all involve means of knowing other than induction on
solid empirical evidence, and they are all legitimate means of
knowing. It comes as no surprise, then, that Christians can know God
without having to take quantitative measurements of his mass, volume,
and velocity.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-18 08:54:32']You see, I think the
problem here is that your definition of 'truth' differs to mine. My
definition refers to something we cannot possibly know for certain
until it has been deduced from solid empirical evidence, whereas you
seem to be talking about knowing 'true things' about about a God that
we cannot possibly say for certain exists or not. In that respect, I
cannot see how we can label anything about the notion of God as 'true'.
All religion relies on 'faith' or 'belief without evidence', although,
to be fair, it may just be that we are operating on different paradigms
here.[/QUOTE]
Hmm there are many things going on here.
1. This is less an issue of truth than it is knowledge. Where you
differ is that you don't think we can [i]know[/i] true things about
God. So this is an issue of knowledge, not truth.
2. For you, knowledge is intellectual recognition of quantitative data
about an external object. This was the modern ideal which was
developed into positivism. But this is just one mode of knowledge.
For instance, I know my wife and my friend Stuart at work, but
knowledge there means that I have a certain kind of interactional
relationship with them. I know how to use a hammer, but that means
that I have a certain kind of interactional relationship with hammers.
I know what the color red looks like, and that means that I have a
certain kind of interactional relationship with red.
In contrast, when I say that I know that a falling mass accelerates
toward Earth at around 9.8 m/s^2, I'm not talking about an
interactional relationship. Instead, I'm talking about information I
have learned by studying, which serves as a tool in the other kinds of
"knowing" I mentioned above. What is important here is that the other
kinds of knowing precede this kind of knowing and, even more
significantly, the whole purpose of this kind of knowing is to serve
the other kinds of knowing.
3. Even when we situate that latter kind of knowledge ("knowing that
P," epistemological knowledge) within the broader context of knowledge
(i.e., the other knowledges that it exists to serve), however, there
are further clarifications to be made. You identify this kind of
knowledge exclusively with knowledge that "has been deduced from solid
empirical evidence." But there is a fascinating twist to this simple
empiricism.
What does "solid empirical evidence" mean? No need for a perfectly
precise answer, but we certainly know that we're looking for
information that can be quantified. We want to know mass, volume,
etc. We're looking for [i]numbers[/i]. The real drive behind this is
that we want this evidence to be mathematical. We want geometry,
arithmetic, calculus, etc - that's real evidence.
But this is where we reach our quandary. The problem here is that the
truths of mathematics are obviously not empirical truths. Anyone who
has done any amount of work in mathematics or the philosophy of
mathematics knows this without thinking twice. So deduction from solid
empirical evidence ultimately depends on truths which were not deduced
from solid empirical evidence! And what that means is that not all
knowledge "is deduced from solid empirical evidence" -- in fact,
deduction (or, really, induction) from empirical evidence relies on
prior knowledge that we already have.
The history of philosophy bears this out. Descartes's mathematical
rationalism spawned Locke's simple empiricism, which was turned on its
head by Berkeley, confused and sophisticated by Hume, and completely
replaced by Kant. I won't rehearse the story beyond that, but suffice
it to say that a simple empiricism just does not stand on its own.
4. In fact there are many means of knowing apart from induction from
empirical data. I mentioned mathematics, and certainly I don't know
that murder and rape are evil because of empirical studies. What about
my knowledge of Shakespeare's plays, or PT Anderson's films? Why do I
believe that my wife loves me, or even that the sun will rise
tomorrow? These all involve means of knowing other than induction on
solid empirical evidence, and they are all legitimate means of
knowing. It comes as no surprise, then, that Christians can know God
without having to take quantitative measurements of his mass, volume,
and velocity.
5. "Faith" for Christians is trust, and more specifically trusting God in Christ by the Spirit, not some sort of irrational means of knowledge-acquisition that is opposed to "reason". The famous example is of course Abraham, who trusted God: Abraham believed that God would make good on his promise to Abraham. "Faith" was not a means or method whereby he knew God or knew what God had promised, because in the story God is represented as speaking directly to him; faith was, instead, Abraham's trust in God's promise despite adverse conditions.
The Enlightenment pitted its ideal Reason against Prejudice, Tradition, and Authority. (Faith was rejected as a prejudice built on a tradition which obeyed an authority.) Now, while it had a nice rhetorical mask, this was never anything but prejudice against prejudice, tradition against tradition, and authority that rejected authority -- it could not escape the things it claimed to set itself against. It failed to recognize that Prejudice might be the relevance of precedent rather than hasty or unfounded judgment, that Tradition might be the development of wisdom and knowledge rather than blind dogmatism, and that Authority might be the critical acceptance of another's superiority rather than oppressive domination.
In fact, we are all embedded in our "prejudices," "traditions," and "authorities." "Reason" builds from and serves these three, as I hinted at in points #2 and #3. Abraham's faith-prejudice led him to trust this God as his authority and looked to the tradition of God's promised covenant. That was his faith, and that is ours.
5. "Faith" for Christians is [i]trust[/i], and more specifically trusting God in Christ by the Spirit, not some sort of irrational means of knowledge-acquisition that is opposed to "reason". The famous example is of course Abraham, who trusted God: Abraham believed that God would make good on his promise to Abraham. "Faith" was not a means or method whereby he knew God or knew what God had promised, because in the story God is represented as speaking directly to him; faith was, instead, Abraham's trust in God's promise despite adverse conditions.
The Enlightenment pitted its ideal Reason against Prejudice, Tradition, and Authority. (Faith was rejected as a prejudice built on a tradition which obeyed an authority.) Now, while it had a nice rhetorical mask, this was never anything but prejudice against prejudice, tradition against tradition, and authority that rejected authority -- it could not escape the things it claimed to set itself against. It failed to recognize that Prejudice might be the relevance of precedent rather than hasty or unfounded judgment, that Tradition might be the development of wisdom and knowledge rather than blind dogmatism, and that Authority might be the critical acceptance of another's superiority rather than oppressive domination.
In fact, we are all embedded in our "prejudices," "traditions," and "authorities." "Reason" builds from and serves these three, as I hinted at in points #2 and #3. Abraham's faith-prejudice led him to trust this God as his authority and looked to the tradition of God's promised covenant. That was his faith, and that is ours.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:00am : As far as I am aware, I'm simply reacting to what you've written, what part of what you wrote are you claiming I'm not responding to?
I said that you were using a hackneyed stereotype, and instead of answering you deflected the point.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:00am : I'm afraid I don't quite follow your ornothologist analogy. Are you saying that someone looking at a bird who 'knows' they are looking at a bird is similar to someone who looks at a homosexual 'knows' they are looking at a sinner?
No. Maybe the idiomatic usage of 'stereotype' is different in the UK than in the US. Here, 'stereotype' is a simplistic, distorted characterization of a group of people. But we're talking about a moral judgment of a practice, not a characterization of a group of people, so clearly we're not talking about a stereotype. That is, unless you think it is stereotyping to say that non-celibate homosexuals have gay sex.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:00am : You said that 'Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that homosexuality is a type of sin.' Is that how Christianity still view's homosexuality or not? Or, alternatively, what are your own personal thoughts on this, do 'you' think that homosexuality is a sin or not. I'm asking for plain English here instead of skirting around the issue with strange analogies.
The purpose of the analogy was try to be more clear, not to skirt around anything. Clearly I failed.
There have been some recent movements among mainline Protestants to integrate the modern homosexual community as-is into the Church. (I'd imagine you know a good bit of this with respect to the Anglican Communion.) With Michel Foucault, they recognize that "the homosexual" as we now understand the term did not come to exist until very recently, and they conclude that the Bible and the history of Christian reflection on marriage and love must be irrelevant to modern homosexuality. They then recognize that gay people are every bit as capable of emotional attachment to one another, and conclude that we should uncritically accept modern homosexuality as part of Christian life.
I can't help but be sympathetic to any attempt to destroy social antipathy against gays, or any other marginalized group, but the reasoning here doesn't bring about the whole conclusion. Foucault was not pointing out that the modern phenomenon of "homosexuality" is completely isolated from the history of marriage and love, but rather that homophobia is itself a product of modernity -- of "objective science." To take him seriously, then, we cannot uncritically accept modernity's conception of love -- that is, love as emotional attachment -- because if we have nothing to say against modernity then we have nothing to say of the homophobia that it has spawned.
Conservatives, in my experience, are far more accepting of gays than is recognized; I've never heard gays singled out in a conservative church, and in fact I led a small group which included transgendered and gay members. However, there is a lot of animosity toward gays among political conservatives, and this often spills over with so many conservative Christians who are political conservatives. Conservative Christians accept modernity's conception of love as emotional attachment, and so gather weekly to sing over and over the lyrics of teenaged love songs with 'Jesus' inserted now and again. Worse, conservatives have given up the Church as the social center of Christendom and instead their thinking revolves around the State. Gays are an easy scapegoat because such a small percentage of people can even imagine wanting to be gay. And gay couples make conservatives uneasy because they are better at romantic love than very many heterosexual Christian couples.
Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who would be a Christian had to be perfect beforehand? Internet pornography and music piracy would bar half the Western world from the pews -- homosexuality is just a drop in the bucket. What of divorce, spousal abuse, cheating on your wife, emotional detachment from family, drunkenness, etc.? How much more drastically significant are these than homosexuality?
So we can't accept the liberals' moral revisionism, and we can't accept the conservatives' revised moralism. We are a people of healing, but we are not done healing and neither is the world. God seeks the sinners, the outcast, and the poor to bring mercy into their lives.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-18 07:00:27']As far as I am aware, I'm simply reacting to what you've written, what part of what you wrote are you claiming I'm not responding to?[/quote] I said that you were using a hackneyed stereotype, and instead of answering you deflected the point.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-18 07:00:27'] I'm afraid I don't quite follow your ornothologist analogy. Are you saying that someone looking at a bird who 'knows' they are looking at a bird is similar to someone who looks at a homosexual 'knows' they are looking at a sinner?[/quote] No. Maybe the idiomatic usage of 'stereotype' is different in the UK than in the US. Here, 'stereotype' is a simplistic, distorted characterization of a group of people. But we're talking about a moral judgment of a practice, not a characterization of a group of people, so clearly we're not talking about a stereotype. That is, unless you think it is stereotyping to say that non-celibate homosexuals have gay sex.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-18 07:00:27']You said that 'Historically the Christian ethical tradition has held that homosexuality is a type of sin.' Is that how Christianity still view's homosexuality or not? Or, alternatively, what are your own personal thoughts on this, do 'you' think that homosexuality is a sin or not. I'm asking for plain English here instead of skirting around the issue with strange analogies.[/quote] The purpose of the analogy was try to be more clear, not to skirt around anything. Clearly I failed. ;)
There have been some recent movements among mainline Protestants to integrate the modern homosexual community as-is into the Church. (I'd imagine you know a good bit of this with respect to the Anglican Communion.) With Michel Foucault, they recognize that "the homosexual" as we now understand the term did not come to exist until very recently, and they conclude that the Bible and the history of Christian reflection on marriage and love must be irrelevant to modern homosexuality. They then recognize that gay people are every bit as capable of emotional attachment to one another, and conclude that we should uncritically accept modern homosexuality as part of Christian life.
I can't help but be sympathetic to any attempt to destroy social antipathy against gays, or any other marginalized group, but the reasoning here doesn't bring about the whole conclusion. Foucault was not pointing out that the modern phenomenon of "homosexuality" is completely isolated from the history of marriage and love, but rather that homophobia is itself a product of modernity -- of "objective science." To take him seriously, then, we cannot uncritically accept modernity's conception of love -- that is, love as emotional attachment -- because if we have nothing to say against modernity then we have nothing to say of the homophobia that it has spawned.
Conservatives, in my experience, are far more accepting of gays than is recognized; I've never heard gays singled out in a conservative church, and in fact I led a small group which included transgendered and gay members. However, there is a lot of animosity toward gays among political conservatives, and this often spills over with so many conservative Christians who are political conservatives. Conservative Christians accept modernity's conception of love as emotional attachment, and so gather weekly to sing over and over the lyrics of teenaged love songs with 'Jesus' inserted now and again. Worse, conservatives have given up the Church as the social center of Christendom and instead their thinking revolves around the State. Gays are an easy scapegoat because such a small percentage of people can even imagine wanting to be gay. And gay couples make conservatives uneasy because they are better at romantic love than very many heterosexual Christian couples.
Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who would be a Christian had to be perfect beforehand? Internet pornography and music piracy would bar half the Western world from the pews -- homosexuality is just a drop in the bucket. What of divorce, spousal abuse, cheating on your wife, emotional detachment from family, drunkenness, etc.? How much more drastically significant are these than homosexuality?
So we can't accept the liberals' moral revisionism, and we can't accept the conservatives' revised moralism. We are a people of healing, but we are not done healing and neither is the world. God seeks the sinners, the outcast, and the poor to bring mercy into their lives.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:00am : Sorry, you've lost me again, what argument are you claiming I'm making? Because I'm pretty sure I'm making the argument that calling homosexuals 'sinners' because of a sexual orientation that they din't have a choice in is a form of abuse.
As long as we're back on track. You had written,
"My argument is that I don't morally judge people based on religious doctrine... to me, the Christian argument against homosexuality may as well be that it's wrong because the Norse god of thunder Thor said is was wrong."
Obviously that's different from "calling homosexuals 'sinners' because of a sexual orientation that they din't have a choice in is a form of abuse."
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 6:00am : What's to defend? I simply asked 'if' God existed in the Christian sense, and if he created people and animals to be homosexual, why would God consider homosexuality to be abhorrent? Did God make a mistake by creating them with this sexual orientation or has he purposely created something that is abhorrent to himself? If the latter is the case, then the next obvious quiestion is 'why' would God create something that is abhorrent to himself? I'm trying to understand the logic behind labeling homosexuals as 'sinners'.
Then the answer to the underlying question is, while God created the world good, the world is not now as it was meant to be -- in other words, there's no reason to think that God created people gay. This is why I pointed out earlier that the Fall stands between Creation and today.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:00am : A 'victim' is someone who is harmed by or made to suffer, either physicaly or mentaly, from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition.
To 'purposly' create a victim from an innocent is morally abhorrent to most of us which is why creating a victim from an innocent is generaly classed as evil. So rape, murder, theft and deceit would all be considered as 'creating a victim' and inherently 'evil'
If consensus is the only grounds you've got then you may be in trouble. Many a consensus has been overturned on grounds other than consensus, after all.
Worse, however, modern bourgeois Westerners are the only people in the world who share your ethical view here, so consensus won't even get you what you want. Victim-ethics is not particularly popular among many classes in Western societies, almost non-existent in non-Western societies, and absent from most of the rest of history until just recently. For that matter, most people around the world today -- and certainly most people through time -- have seen heterosexuality as the norm.
Consensus is a dangerous road to travel. There was once a consensus that it was a good idea to commit infanticide against daughters. That consensus still exists in India and China, among other places. Will you follow that consensus? Or perhaps you prefer regional consensus to global consensus. There was quite a regional consensus over killing Jews in Nazi Germany, and it was backed by all the promises of modernity. Was that a good consensus to follow?
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-18 07:00:27']Sorry, you've lost me again, what argument are you claiming I'm making? Because I'm pretty sure I'm making the argument that calling homosexuals 'sinners' because of a sexual orientation that they din't have a choice in is a form of abuse.[/quote]
As long as we're back on track. You had written,
"My argument is that I don't morally judge people based on religious doctrine... to me, the Christian argument against homosexuality may as well be that it's wrong because the Norse god of thunder Thor said is was wrong."
Obviously that's different from "calling homosexuals 'sinners' because of a sexual orientation that they din't have a choice in is a form of abuse."
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-17 06:00:26'] What's to defend? I simply asked 'if' God existed in the Christian sense, and if he created people and animals to be homosexual, why would God consider homosexuality to be abhorrent? Did God make a mistake by creating them with this sexual orientation or has he purposely created something that is abhorrent to himself? If the latter is the case, then the next obvious quiestion is 'why' would God create something that is abhorrent to himself? I'm trying to understand the logic behind labeling homosexuals as 'sinners'.[/quote]
Then the answer to the underlying question is, while God created the world good, the world is not now as it was meant to be -- in other words, there's no reason to think that God created people gay. This is why I pointed out earlier that the Fall stands between Creation and today.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-18 07:00:27']A 'victim' is someone who is harmed by or made to suffer, either physicaly or mentaly, from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition.
To 'purposly' create a victim from an innocent is morally abhorrent to most of us which is why creating a victim from an innocent is generaly classed as evil. So rape, murder, theft and deceit would all be considered as 'creating a victim' and inherently 'evil'[/quote]
If consensus is the [i]only[/i] grounds you've got then you may be in trouble. Many a consensus has been overturned on grounds other than consensus, after all.
Worse, however, modern bourgeois Westerners are the only people in the world who share your ethical view here, so consensus won't even get you what you want. Victim-ethics is not particularly popular among many classes in Western societies, almost non-existent in non-Western societies, and absent from most of the rest of history until just recently. For that matter, most people around the world today -- and certainly most people through time -- have seen heterosexuality as the norm.
Consensus is a dangerous road to travel. There was once a consensus that it was a good idea to commit infanticide against daughters. That consensus still exists in India and China, among other places. Will you follow that consensus? Or perhaps you prefer regional consensus to global consensus. There was quite a regional consensus over killing Jews in Nazi Germany, and it was backed by all the promises of modernity. Was that a good consensus to follow?
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:25am : Subsequently, I put
it to you that a general public stance on rape, murder, theft and
deceit 'has' actualy been arrived at which is that they are 'immoral'
because they all create victims while there is still much debate
continuing on whether homosexuality is immoral or not, so I can't see
how you can associate homosexuality with rape, murder, theft and
deceit.
Insisting that the immorality of rape, murder, theft, and deceit is a
fixed point only strengthens my rebuttal. You say that any action
which results from strong biological impulses can't be immoral. I then
point out that all of your fixed points -- rape, murder, theft, deceit
-- often result from strong biological impulses. So that means that
either you have to give up your fixed points or you have to give up
your argument.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:25am : Furthermore, I think
it is actualy immoral to publicly associate homosexuality with such
'victim creating' crimes as it is verging on 'slanderous', which again
is something that creates a 'victim'.
I can imagine, haha.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:25am : My own view is that
homosexuality has been 'wrongly' labeled as 'immoral' by some on the
basis of 'because a hypothetical (and in my view, fictional) God says
so'.
As a socio-cultural phenomenon it doesn't strike you that procreation
would be part of the historical cause? By contrast, Plato, for
instance, admired sex between a man and a boy precisely because he
hated the material world and the "natural" order of things. He would
not like married heterosexual sex because it was the material,
"natural" way to reproduce -- reproduction itself being a material,
"natural" thing with material, "natural" purposes. Historically,
rejection of homosexuality has been based on a commitment to the
material world and the body.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:25am : And just so we're
clear here, that's not me "poking fun" at you or your religion, that's
just me giving you my point of view in the hope that you can understand
that point of view.
I get it. You weren't misrepresenting.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:25am : I never said that
creating a victim is the only kind of evil, (although I must admit it's
hard to think of a victimless form of evil) only that I couldn't see
any evil in two consenting adults of the same sex declaring their love
for one another as it has no affect whatsover on anyone else.
But either that's just a trivial piece of autobiography (which I doubt
is your point) or you're implicitly relying on the exclusivity of
morality-as-victimization.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 7:25am : Let me ask you
another question. I take it you're familiar with Fred Phelps and the
Westboro Baptist Church and their stance that 'God hates fags' (their
words, not mine) and I'm assuming (although I admit that I may be wrong
here as I don't personally know you) that like most other folks, you
find them to be a pretty repulsive and distasteful bunch. But if you
consider that homosexualty is a sin, aren't you effectively agreeing
with their stance?
The gay community serves as a scapegoat for their sense of impotence in
American politics, so this is not an issue of Christianity but rather
an issue of American civil government. Where they see an opportunity
to condemn and blame, Christians should see the truth that when we
ourselves were enemies of God he loved us and came to save us.
Therefore we should look at all people with faithful eyes of hope and
love.
[QUOTE u='SlackerBabbath' d='2009-10-18 07:25:00']Subsequently, I put
it to you that a general public stance on rape, murder, theft and
deceit 'has' actualy been arrived at which is that they are 'immoral'
because they all create victims while there is still much debate
continuing on whether homosexuality is immoral or not, so I can't see
| My Profile
Christian Guitarists group
Even if the Virgin Birth never occurred, i can still have my Christianity AND my Bible!
) which used to be called 'Marsden', 'Marsden' means 'boundry vally', boundries and valleys suggests farming, particularly the growing of crops such as wheat (which is used to make bread) in low, fertile places and to top it off, my family were all bakers back in the 60s when I was born. Because of my family (a family name used to be referred to as 'the house of...' and a person's family 'name' use to be connected to the job he did) and the name of the place where I was born, I can 'reinterpret' myself as being born in the 'House of Bread' or 'Bethlehem' and reinterpret the prophecy as being about myself.
) so he 
There are also bisexual people that could pass on the part of their genome that predisposes people to homosexuality.