[OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

This thread is an offshoot of the Rating Fyron thread. I thought we should start a new thread, since it is off topic for the other one. For those interested in the discussion who haven't followed the arguments over in the other thread, here's a summation.

Imperator Fyron's argument: The Church prevented advancement of science during the Dark Ages, resulting in a couple of centuries delay in the march of progress. (Fyron, please let me know if I've not stated your case correctly)

Chronon's argument: Because of the interconnected nature of Christianity and science in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period (our previous discussion centered on Galileo), the "bad" church versus "good" science argument is simplistic and anachronistic.

So, on with the discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 24, 2003, 01:34: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Saint Augustine, wherever he is, is shaking his head right about now... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When you think of one, let me know, and we'll discuss it.

Even if you should find one, though, you will still have to show that the Church had no positive impact on knowledge production in the Middle Ages. This may be more difficult than you think. For one, the monasteries were repositories for many of the great classical texts of mathematics (Euclid, Pythagorus), medicine (Aristotle, Galen), philosophy (Plato, Aristotle again), and astronomy (Hipparchus, Ptolemy). And the thinkers of the Middle Ages were church trained, because that was the only real source of education.

So, how would eliminating the Church have sped up progress?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I suppose I can weigh in on a few points:

The 'dark ages' in Europe were more the result of the collapse of the Roman Empire and with much war and food shortages, people were more concerned with the basics of survival than 'science' or technology. However, the Chinese and Arabs were doing just fine in these regards and developed lots of new stuff.

Like Chronon already mentioned:

The Church during this time was actually helpful as they copied/translated many important manuscripts which allowed later scholars to develop into new ideas, of course, this was not all good because when something went against the doctrine of the church - things could get it a little rough.

But it did not really hold back 'science'...it was more of people's convictions to the old school of though (i.e. Aristotle, etc).

You may notice I say 'science'. Real science did not begin until the late 1600s and wasn't really seperated from philosophy until the late 1700s.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:38: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Starting an OT thread is redundant. The original thread is already OT, and has veered into several different topics already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Church refused to acknowledge new ideas that conflicted with its views, which is how it slowed down advancement, not education. And again, I was talking about the European Dark Ages, not really about the time of Galileo. The EDA were over before he was ever born.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, and I explicitly stated that several times during the discussion. Although, the Chinese did not make that many advancements during the period of time that the European Dark Ages Lasted, they just did not lose a lot of the basics like Europe did when Rome collapsed.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, and the Church made very effort to preserve those old schools of thought.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:47: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Sir Fyron:

If you misunderstood, the church did not get involved in such things until the time around Gallieo and Co., it didn't hold back anything in the dark ages.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And on what do you base this claim?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Ahh come on.

SEIV Stock 1.84
Small Universe ,
3 planet start
3000 Racial Points
Good value 10k
No Intel
Events at High and Catastrophic ( worst speller ever ) so lots of floods, locusts, Scientific explosions
No Ai

Tag Team Match.

Those who Believe in a God vs Heretics.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Lets get this going.

We can settle this once and for all.

http://www.ccel.org/c/chesterton/heretics/heretics.html

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Umm... no. Debate is not served by violent confrontation.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the church or religion or anything like that...

The main factors that held back advancement in the dark ages was war, famine, and disease. People who are struggling to survive aren't as interested in 'science' or technology. The church was not a major factor and didn't really interfere with much until the late middle ages through the renaissance.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That sounds like a weakling talking! You and me buddy, right here, right now, bare knuckle boxing, twenty rounds!

Fyron: You do realize that you are doing several things right now that you always complain about others doing.

First, you keep making a claim without any support material, while others are telling you you are wrong and using support material.

When other people offer counterpoints, you just restate your previous point which has no bearing on the new points.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, they do not have support material. I have seen them post no supporting material.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only counterpoints where I did that were when they posted something that I had already said or talked about earlier in the discussion.

[ March 10, 2003, 06:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Ha, this is something that I have thought about a few times.
I do agree that Religion did hamper "Growth". True, they did copy selected "texts" that they deemed worthy, but the peasants were NOT encouraged to be literate, if they were, the Churches power base would weaken since they were the only ones that could give the word of GOD (which that was just their point). All in all it came down to POWER, the Church throttled freethinking, there were many good things that they did, but the bad/evil/ignorant things surely made up for it, such as the Crusades or the Inquisitions.

I think of the Great Library in Alexandria which had many documents from all over the known world. One thing was a simple working steam power device. What would have been if the library had not burned down?

I do think that we can look at history and draw more than one conclusion, hence the conflict of opinions (at least we wont go to the stake for them). If we do look back over the Last 2000 years, the Last 300 years have been amazing and the Last 80/90 more than astonishing (of course we all know that).

That all said, I am with Fyron. The Church was not everything in the power base of Europe, but it was a major part of it and the things it did to stifle knowledge (and I contend anything other than what THEY thought was true knowledge was ignored) had a long Lasting effect on Growth, otherwise how come when America won its freedom did we really start to see growth?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Didn't the monks erase Aristoteles works and use the pergament for prayer books instead?
Thereby eradicating valuable knowledge, some of which has been independetly discovered so late as in the 20:th century.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They did not. In fact, they copied his works preferentially because of their divine implications, i.e., that everything in the universe is striving for its perfect state, etc...

If we are talking about the European dark ages ~500-1400 then war/invasion/disease were all primary causes of technological stagnation, not the church! The church didn't really start to take control until the 1200s etc, and that was after the Europeans were able to manage a bit of stability. The church in 1500-1600s is more what you guys are referring to - but even to some degree, it was the thinkers who were stuck on Aristotle and not open to new possibilities that kept new thinkers from making a bigger splash then they did...

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You see, Inquisition is just a good point to proof that the world isn't black and white.

You thinks "fair trail" is good thing? Who thinks the sentence "innocent until proved guilty" is a good one?
Well, you might be surprised but this fundaments of our (western) societies were laid down by the Inquisition. It's highest principle was that under no circumstances a innocent person could every be convicted. If there wasn't 100% proof of the guilt you had to release the accused person. And the only 100% proof was a confession. So, without a confession by the criminal himself you had to release him. I think this is quite remarkable and a very high standard.
Well, the same system created to prevent the punishment of the innocent let to torture. Without confession no conviction so they tortured you to get it. The system itself was build to give you security and ended in horror. The faults of us humans...
But after we abandoned torture it became the fundament of your punitive law systems…

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, they do not have support material. I have seen them post no supporting material.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And neither are you, Fyron.
Science and education were preserved in the Church during the EDA in the monasteries. Without the sanctuary of the monasteries and Church buildings most if not all of the ancient wisdoms from the Greeks and Romans would have been destroyed. And, finally, don't just forget the worldly rulers. Do you think they had any interest in educating the pawns, their minions?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Well, this thread generated alot more discussion than I anticipated. It's good to know that many people are still interested in history. Perhaps this new thread isn't so redundant after all? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Tesco - Good idea, but since I would be on Fyron's team (if we're defining it along religious lines I'm definitely not a true believer - more of an agnostic really) we'd have to play the AI, and that just wouldn't be much fun.

Fyron - I thought that I did provide plenty of supporting examples on my points. Could you be more specific on the types of evidence you would like to see?

Narrew and Fyron - I won't argue that the world view of the Middle Ages seems somewhat limited from our modern perspective. But as Kwok has argued, the reasons for this go beyond the Church. Are you arguing that without the Church there would have arisen a kind of spontaneous Scientific Revolution?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Nice topic. Here are my 2 cents.
(dark Age timeset : 300 - 1500 for this post)



At the beginning of the Dark Age, the WHOLE of Europe was invaded by barbarians. Some of these, the Francs, conquered the roman province of Gaulle and settled down. Most of the barbarian rulers were completely illiterates. Do you remember Charles Martel (Charlemagne) ? Well he was not able to write his name, but he was the very first powerful King to adopt Christianism.

It would be a dream to think knowledge was transmitted in the population. Serfs were not much more than slaves, they did not have the leisure to learn read/write. Knowledge was only transmitted between priests and monks who all learned latin. Until Charlemagne, almost all the ruling nobles were illiterate.

So, until Charlemagne, there is no question that knowledge salvaged from the roman Empire had been saved by the Churche.
Sometime, you even had improvement, but it was very slow. For example, until 1095, everybody in Europe (spain excepted, but it was Arab...)used to count with roman numbers (I, II, III, IV etc..). Only a handful of monks in europe were able to do a complexe multiplication or division. And if you do not believe it, just try to compute 52384.124 * 9145687.1235 using roman numbers.
Good luck.
Then went the first crusade. Then went a bunch of monks who came back from the holy land bringing knowledge of arabs numbers. In less than a century, every single idiot in europe became able to work out the basic operations using arab numbers.

That was for the church.
Speaking of it, which church are we speaking of ? High level church ? Or lowly monks in their covent ?
High ranking in the christian church were often coming from noble families. I would suggest everyone to try reading historical report on reign of Hugue Capet (a few years before 1000), and you'll see noble warriors continuously betraying each other, with the help of some of their family members in the ranks of the church. At that time, it was not unknown to have an eveque or such murdered by an enemy noble.

Most of the high church was about politics and power. But for this topics, what is interesting is the low level monks and priest, who has been the true gardians of both the faith and knowledge.

So Fyron, I have to disagree with you, the Church was tremendous in gaining and keeping track of human knowledge during the dark age. Simply put it, the time was not right for big advances despite the Church.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unknown_Enemy has brought up a very important point. Once the church was no longer oppressed, but rather became the seat of power, it attracted those who seek power, rather than just those who truly followed the teachings of Christ.

To this day there is a dichotomy between those who use the institutional church as a source of political power and those for whom the church is a place of fellowship with others who also seek to follow Christ. It is interesting that the only people that Christ was recorded as having harsh words for were the religious leaders who put extra burdens upon their followers.

Given that dichotomy, my response to this thread is that the power structure of the church did do things that hindered scientific advancement, as well as perpetrate other embarrassments such as inquisitions and crusades. On the other hand, the underlying structure of the church was instrumental in both the preservation of knowledge and education, both of which provided foundations for future scientific advancement. Thus the issue is not really black and white at all, but rather a mix of good and bad. I do not feel qualified to comment on whether the good or the bad is of more significance.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, they do not have support material. I have seen them post no supporting material.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And neither are you, Fyron.
Science and education were preserved in the Church during the EDA in the monasteries. Without the sanctuary of the monasteries and Church buildings most if not all of the ancient wisdoms from the Greeks and Romans would have been destroyed. And, finally, don't just forget the worldly rulers. Do you think they had any interest in educating the pawns, their minions?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you people have misunderstood me. I never once said nor implied that the Church was the only factor. Of course other things were influences. What I said was that the Curch stifled new advancements. Of course the monastaries preserved old documents. I never once said they did not, or said anything that is affected by that fact. You do not get new advancements simply by preserving ancient texts. After the facts began overwhelming the Church's dogma, these texts were used to restore long lost knowledge. But, this still is not qualified as a new advancement.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My point was that you did not cite any sources for your claims, which some people seem to think is only a problem when I make Posts.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I am arguing that the Church's actions of clinging to old (false) beliefs about the nature of the world prolonged the European Dark Ages because questioning the Church was heresy. How can you come up with new ideas when you are branded as a heretic for doing so? If the Catholic Church was not there, there would have been a different Church that would have done just about the same exact thing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course it would. I have not seen anyone argue this so far.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Indeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

/me reluctantly enters the discussion...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, Fyron. You want other people to quote their sources, while your rebuttals consist of "I have objective proof that you're wrong. I have read it myself. I just don't have it available here right now." Fine, so you have proof that convinces you. So post it, so we can dissect and/or rebut it. I'm not saying anything about the validity of your sources, just that you can't expect everyone to accept your argument when what you've posted is basically "Take my word for it, there's good proof." To accept your proofs sight unseen is at least as grevious an error as to accept anyone else's assertions sans source.

Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible was written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The first two sentences are true (although old does not always equal false). The third belies your mistrust of religion (and of anything else not scientifically provable). Where's the proof that "a different Church...would have done just about the exact same thing"? The RCC (at least those in power) during the EDA (and, some would argue, even now) was hardly a Bible-practicing church, as has been previously alluded to. Should church and government not have been married ~AD325, things may have turned out quite differently.

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.

[edits-stoopud keebored, removing an "n't"]

[ March 11, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Indeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Knowing what is morally right and wrong is quite possible without the help of the chruch. In fact some would argue the opposite. (something along the lines that you can do whatever you want and then confess your sins and still get into heavan)It has always bothered me how some people seem to think that if you don't believe in God then you don't know what is right and wrong. (and no I am not accusing you of this but some people seem to believe this)

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said that. My point was that people keep calling on me for not doing that, while ignoring it when everyone else does it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm.... I have said that the bible was written after the events occured. I never argued that it was written before the events occured. Why would I ever want to try to prove that?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said that. But, a lot of the old "scientific" beliefs that the Church clung to were indeed wrong. It is more of a coincidence than some sweeping statement about old beliefs = wrong beliefs.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was stated as an opinion, not a fact.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hope this was not meant to be included in your argument against me, as I have never once written anything contrary to this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, a lot of those "barbarians" (such as the Celts) were more civil and moral than the Romans were.

The "barbarians" had their own systems of moral values that, while not the same as those of Catholicism, were by no means inferior.

I say "barbarians" because they were not normally barbaric, esp. compared to the Romans. A lot of them did not do things like place the heads of all rebels on pikes in front of newly conquered cities. They did not go in and force whole villages to move elsewhere so that they would not know the land around them, and would have a harder time forming a resistance. Or was that the Macedonians (under Alexander the Great)? Probably both.

They are only labeled as "barbarians" because the Romans used a word in Latin that the English "barbarian" is derived from. But, that word meant "foreigners" and not "savages". It is the original English translation that has caused a lot of misconceptions as to people assuming that all of the tribes that fought against the Romans were savage.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You described (in the other thread, if not in this one) in great detail that you have read such and such, and the authors don't have an ax to grind, etc. You also said that you don't have the sources available to post. The whole point of my post (as opposed to the snippet you quoted) was that your proof might satisfy you, but don't expect it to satisfy those who haven't seen it. Since your replies frequently include phraseology such as "That's not true, according to basic historical facts" yet you haven't posted the facts, I assume you want us to take your word for it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm.... I have said that the bible was written after the events occured. I never argued that it was written before the events occured. Why would I ever want to try to prove that?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's not quibble over that extra "n't" in my post, 'kay? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I knew I missed something in my edits. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The (corrected) point still stands--it is your responsibility to prove there is reasonable cause to doubt the pre-existence of prophetic material.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hope this was not meant to be included in your argument against me, as I have never once written anything contrary to this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it was just extra food for thought. It ties in with the current topic by showing that the EDA weren't a sudden regression in scientific knowledge, but a more pronounced era of a general trend.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the burden of proof lies on those that claim that the Bible has prophetic ability. That claim is false without any supporting evidence. I did not randomly come out and say that the Bible has no predictive ability. I said that the people that said it does have those abilities were wrong. They had no convincing proof to back up their claims, and so they were wrong. I only have to debunk the effects of their evidence (or the evidence itself) to prove them wrong.

You started responding too soon, and probably missed half of my edits to that long post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 00:27: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Re quoting sources: sorry Fyron, agree with most of your points but you can't operate double standards on that one. Trouble is, a trawl of sci-fi fans and wargamers rarely results in a crop of historians. So most of us are arguing from a pretty incomplete recollection of what is (at best) a very patchy body of evidence to begin with...

To throw a few points in that have been neglected I think.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With the exception of an early post mentioning Arabic (actually Indian, folks) numerals, the role of the Islamic world has been overlooked here. Many of the works of classical civilisation were preserved by Islamic scholars, along with many of the humanistic values of that civilisation. There is an argument that the beginnings of (relatively) peaceful contact with the Ottoman Empire in the post-crusading period were the main trigger for the Renaissance. Those classical texts were 'rediscovered' by Western scholars through those contacts. Remember that Europe was a complete backwater for almost a thousand years.

There has been an explosion of interest in the Classical period in recent years; making a massive generalisation, I would say that (rose-tinted of course) admiration for the Hellenistic civilisation often takes the form of considering 'us' to be closer to 'them' than to the people of the intervening couple of millenia. And I would argue that modern Christianity is an expression of this trend also.

The Christianity as practiced, and certainly as expressed by the church, in that intervening period has borne little relation to the tolerance and forgiveness espoused in the New Testament. On the contrary, it has far more often taken the form of the vicious, desert-tribe, patriachal nastiness of the Old. So has the church changed and 'evolved' (irony intentional) towards a truer reflection of New-Testament values of its own accord? Or is it an organisation forced, kicking and screaming to adapt to the civilisation it forms an increasingly smaller part of? I refer you to the example of the recent scandals in the Catholic church; voluntary or kicking-and-screaming reform? Ironically this of course arises from the one Classical practice indisputably preserved in the monasteries - pederasty.

So how did this religion occur, that can preach 'an eye for an eye' as well as 'turn the other cheek'? I would argue that New-Testament Christianity is a product of its time and place - the Hellenistic world. The values that many think of as uniquely Christian are nothing of the sort, they are Greek, to the extent that any single source for them can be postulated. The relationship between the modern Western state and the church is now quintessentially Roman of course - "any religion you like, just pay your taxes..".

But, back on the main line of the thread (or one of them). Did religion hold back advancement in Europe in the period between the Ancient and Modern periods? (not getting into the EDA timeframe scrap). I would say absolutely yes, because the fundamental mental landscape was that of 'argument from authority', rather than 'argument from evidence'. [much much more detail in the 'Galilieo' debate at the tail end of the parent thread]. This is an Achilles heel of all religions - it is the Secularism, not the Christianity, of the Western world that has allowed us to outstrip the rest so spectacularly.

One Last direct response:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please, please not a Hancock or (much worse) Von Daniken plug here I hope? But if you are just saying that earlier ages were composed of people just as intelligent as we are, then I heartily agree. But I would say that the 'prevalent' view, even now, is still the romantic motion of 'wise ancient civilisations'. This has not been true for centuries of course, but the majority of the populace today STILL mistrusts science, underestimates massively and tragically the extent to which technology has transformed their lives relative to their ancestors, and hankers for some mythical pastoral dream as the 'perfect' life. Try David Brin's website for more elequent arguments along this line than mine.

tesco, count me in as a heretic, once my copy of Gold arrives http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not operating any double standards. Again, my point was that some people keep posting that stuff about my Posts that don't cite evidence, while ignoring any Posts made by anyone else that do the same thing mine do. I never once said anything about someone else's post that did not cite evidence.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

You need to stop editing once I start replying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I'm not referring to their contention that the Bible contains prophetic material. That's another matter entirely.

What I'm referring to is your assertion that the prophetic material in the Bible was written after the fact. You never backed that assertion, although your argument that the Bible cannot be prophetic was based (at least in part) on it. As such, it must be treated as an assumption, and not fact, until such time as you present your evidence (which has obviously convinced you).

"Proving" the prophetic nature of the Bible is a matter of determining the date of its writing and comparing the written account to the actual event. As such, it is dependent on the timeline debate. My observation is that you have not presented proof for your argument regarding the timeline aspect of this debate.

Is that all clear?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that's because you do such an adequate job of pointing out their Posts yourself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 00:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I have admitidly only followed these science vs releigon threads loosly but I have yet to see a single case were a proponent of the prophetic bible has given a single example from the bible. Can't anyone give an reference and the historical event it predicts? I get the impression that those claiming the bible predicts future events think it will become true if they repeat it a hundred times.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

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

Be careful when you use the word "written", cause some people will go off on a tangent about oral tradition at the mention of writing something down, even though you may not have meant the literal date of when it was put to paper. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, Rags did say that the Bible predicted the fall of Babylon and Assyria, though that is all he said about it. He gave no book references or anything like that, and he gave no evidence that the relevenat book of the Bible was actually written/composed/created before those events took place. He made a nice argument from authority though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

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

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

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haha, I never heard of this guy so did a search to see what he thinks, and he seems a loonie, but I do like watching Stargate SG1, you think that is based on the truth? (I mean, its on TV, so it must be true J/K).

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rigelian mentioned about being dragged kicking and screaming into reforming or evolving towards a truer reflection of New-Testament values, well the sex scandal is such a sick thing it just proves how hypocritical the Cathloic church truly is, if they could have swept if under the carpet (and they tried very hard to do just that) they would have. So a Starbucks in there? Why should that supprise or offend you? It is not about religion any more, it is about money, power and control. If it wasnt, birth control (as an example) would be encouraged by the Church to protect against STDs, over population and unwanted children, but no... that would cut into their money, even if it was the "right" thing to do.

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

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fine, but until you do, any posturing about "arguing from authority" rings rather hollow.

For a couple of specific prophecies, try:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Isaiah 7. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria is prophesied.
  </font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Isaiah 39. Isaiah (who lived contemporaneously with Hezekiah) prophesies the plunder of the royal treasure by Babylon.
  </font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Isaiah 44:28-47:15. The destruction of Babylon is predicted, including the name of the king (Cyrus) who would defeat them. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple (at Cyrus' orders) are predicted--which is significant, considering they hadn't yet been destroyed in Isaiah's day.
  </font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The dozens of prophecies regarding the Messiah are a book in themselves--his lineage, his place of birth, his virgin birth, the related infant massacre, the flight into Egypt, his ministry in Galilee, his ministry as a prophet and as a priest, his rejection, his triumphal entry, his betrayal by a friend, his accusation by false witnesses, his silence when accused, his death with sinners, the piercing of his hands and feet, the prayer for his enemies, the casting of lots for his coat, his burial with the rich, his ressurection, and his ascension, to name a few. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Specific references are too numerous to list; they are fairly well-documented on the Net.
  Try Google with "Messianic prophecies" or some such. </font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, of course, you're going to respond with "Well, those were all written after the fact." 1) The books in question claim to be written by certain people who lived/interacted with people who verifiably lived at certain times (kings and such); 2) Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship and tradition agrees that they were written at the times claimed; 3) No reasonable doubt has been cast on the integrity of the authors, or the verity of their works; 4) No evidence has been presented which casts reasonable doubt on the traditionally accepted dates of writing.
That should be enough to keep this debate roiling until I can check back up on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If only things were that simple... the predictions on when and how it will be destroyed were not accurate at all. Neither were the "prophecies" that predicted the fall of Babylon. They said that it would fall in a sudden catastrophe, when it took centuris of conquests before Babylon was destroyed. That is just like saying, "the US will fall." It will undoubtedly fall one day; nothing Lasts forever. But, this does not make such a statement very prophetic.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, this is meaningless. I predict that Fort Knox will be plundered. It will undoubtably be robbed one day. But, this does not make me any sort of prophet.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Considering that Jerusalem has always been in the neighborhood of people that are not very friendly to the Hebrew people, it is a safe bet to say that it will be destroyed one day. Saying that it will be rebuilt is also a safe bet, as it is the holy city of the Jews. Why would they not rebuild it if it were to be destroyed? These are not prophetic at all, they were safe bets for Isaiah to make.

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

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All of this assumes that you believe both the myth of the prophecy and the myth of JC. It is essentially rather circular reasoning because you have to already believe one part of the Bible in order for the other part to be verifiable. You can not support one supposition with another supposition.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has it ever occured to you that the authors of the books may not have been telling the truth? People often stretch the truth in order to get their message across. Oh no, these mythic figures could not possibly have lied. They were the authors of the Bible, so they had to be telling the truth, cause the authors of the Bible would never lie. (more circular reasoning)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1000s of years of maintaining the same flawed information that was designed to support their pre-conceived beliefs. Yep, sounds accurate enough to me.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Says who? People that already believe what the Bible says, and so are blind to anything that does not support their beliefs?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No traditionally accepted dates of writing have been presented.

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

All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong? Because the Bible says so? Because you believe that the Bible has prophetic powers (even though it does not), so it must be true? I am certain that if we looked, we could find other religious writings that have the same sort of "prophecies" as the Bible.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

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

1) "Trouble is, a trawl of sci-fi fans and wargamers rarely results in a crop of historians. So most of us are arguing from a pretty incomplete recollection of what is (at best) a very patchy body of evidence to begin with..." (orginally posted by Rigelian) No need to be modest, you all are making some great historical points (even you Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS For those who are interested in sources http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif all my information comes from Judith G. Coffin, et al. Western Civilizations volume I.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 23:13-36

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

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

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

Nice preconception there Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif It might actually support his argument, so therefore it has to be wrong.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a completely unwarranted statement. The bible is not the Gilgamesh epic, or the tales of Hercules. The 'mythic' aspects are pretty much limited to the first book or so. Once you get past the creation story and the parting of the red sea you'll find a rather detailed account of the movers and shakers of the ancient jewish world. It describes the bloody history of a tribe of nomads that eventually settled down, usually through the perspective of the most influential political/religious leader at the time.

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

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

Edit: Add smilie http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know what the Bible is. There is more to it than just the tale of the Hebrew people. Or are you specifically choosing to ignore the New Testament? There is plenty in it that has nothing to do with that tribe of nomads.

[quote]The books of the bible (both oral and then written) were passed down as historical records not mere folklore. Just because a lot of their decisions were made based upon what would seem to be bad acid trips does not mean that the bible is a book of fairy tales. If it was it would be a much more interesting read and wouldn't have so many "begat's" in it.[/b]Ok... you do not know what the term mythology means. It has absolutely nothing to do with fairy tales. I guess I will have to repeat myself: mythology is a collection of tales that define the moral values of a culture. Hmm... the Bible is a collection of tales, which Jews and Christians essentially get their moral values from. Therefore, Bible = mythology.

The Odyssey was passed down as historical record. Does that make everything it says historical fact? No way. Most religious texts/tales were passed down as historical record. The Bible is nothing special in this regard. It has parts based on reality, and parts that are fictional, dramatized for effect.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without a doubt. But does that make a difference? No. There are plenty of Online copies of the Bible available for free.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, I am quite sure.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have grossly misinterpreted my statements. My statements are still quite accurate, and they stand.

I am unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty details of the Bible, but that does not really matter much for this debate. I do not know the nitty-gritty details of other manuscripts, such as the Constitution. But, I know what it is about. Would you say I am quite unfamiliar with it, just because I don't own a copy of it, and I don't read it very often? I would hope not.

[ March 11, 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, the Romans were quite “liberal” as someone else already posted. Give me your money and live as you like. And for that matter, it were different times. The Celts weren’t better or worse in treating their enemies. Heck, they burned the Last warrior to come to a raid to death as a sacrifices to the gods. Better not be late, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
You are correct, “barbarians” is a term for a foreigner but it is Greek, not Roman. It means “bearded”, which was uncommon for Greeks.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And that’s sums it up. No need to discuss any further. Fyron, you just did what you claimed the church did in the EDA. “The earth simply cannot revolve around the sun. If it seems to do so, something fishy has to have taken place.” You just rule out any other explanation because it won’t fit in your world. All the arguments I will bring forth on that matter will fall on deaf ears because what I say just cannot be true. Logic in your world says so!
The point about the prophesies is that either you think that they are possible or they are not. And as a scientist in a Hellenistic tradition you think it highly improbable that prophesy is possible. However, as long as there are indications that it might be possible (biblical texts) you cannot rule it out until you get hard proof that it really is impossible. It might be much more likely that someone tinkered with the texts but that’s no definite proof. I doubt that such hard proof will ever be available. So, I stand critical but will not rule out the possibility that the biblical texts are indeed prophecies.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Real prophesy is not possible IF there is no God. I cannot prove to you scientifically that God exists, but you cannot prove that God does not exist. Why? Because God is outside of creation, being the creator Himself. I can point to things that lead me to believe that there is a designer, such as the complexity of life, the complexity of molecular structures, the complexity of the formation of our solar system, and on and on, but you will say that those are the result of accidents, or are "the way things are". Neither of us can prove or disprove that there was a hand that set it all in motion.

Incidently, the point of prophesy in the Bible is not the prediction of the future, but the revealing of God's will. It might involve foretelling the future, but not always. It is God speaking through a person to reveal His truth.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Mephisto wrote:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, no. 'Barbarian' comes from the Greeks immitating what the sound of foreigner's language sounded like to them. That's why the long, repetitive, multi-voweled 'trance' words in the Gnostic texts are called 'barbarous names'. They're huge, confusing messes of letters to us, but they were apparently representing some form of chant for the ancient people who wrote them down.

Alpha Kodiak: Kudos for recognizing that God cannot be either proven or disproven. Most people these days think that if the logic diagram cannot be closed then the 'issue' to be proven is automatically disproven. Deh... so much for modern 'education'...

[ March 11, 2003, 16:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I stand corrected. There are sources that say it derrives from "bearded" but this seems only to be a rumor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A link:
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue010.html

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is a good thing that I have never once made a claim or argument as to whether the Christian God exists or not, isn't it? If you can not prove whether something exists or not, continuing to claim that it exists is just as large a logical fallacy as continuing to claim that it does not exist.

I think I need to repost this, because it keeps being ignored, and it is much more important than these silly arguments over the alleged prophesizing powers of the Bible:

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

[ March 11, 2003, 17:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am quite aware of the definition of mythology. Myths do not necessarily define the morals of a culture. They explain cultural practices and natural phenomena. Morality may or may not be associated with them. You seem to be saying that the only moral basis of a culture (particularly an ancient one) is myth. This isn't so. The morality dictated within the bible was shaped by the conditions and leaders at the time. The leaders themselves were guided by religious beliefs though and perhaps that is something that you are not comfortable with.

Comparing the bible to the odyssey is just an attempt to minimise the bible, nothing more. The odyssey is a literary construct showing the heroes journey through a supernatural landscape that required the heroes to stab cyclops in the eye and resist the unnatural lures of the siren (IIRC). The more fantastical elements of the bible are, for the most part, limited to visions by various prophets and environmental effects attributed to god. Both of which are well within the realms of modern comprehension and acceptance.

Also, the bible (again, for the most part) is meant to be taken literally, and so does not really qualify as myth. Why did I have to qualify that? Because you have Take various scriptures in context. If prophet X tells his people about his vision it means that prophet X has literally had a vision and is acting upon it. It does not mean that the contents of said vision were walking around in biblical times.

Your implication that the bible is merely a collection of 'tales' minimizes any historical import that it may have and tries to force it into a Category of literature to which it does not belong.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, you asked for it.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

When I was entering fifth grade, far more years ago than I would like to admit, and through a variety of circumstances that are somewhat complex, I wound up in a private Christian school. As my parents were not particularly active in their faith, it was rather odd for me to be there, but, as I said the circumstances were somewhat complex.

As I went through my first year there, I noticed a difference in the way that my teachers cared for the students that did not come through in other schools. This is not to say that the teachers in other schools did not care for the students, but for me at that time, there was something powerful in the love that they showed. Being a Christian school, there were classes in the Bible, and I started learning the basics of Old and New Testament theology at that time. I was particularly struck by the passages speaking of man's sinfullness and God's active seeking to restore the relationship between man and Himself.

I knew even then that while I tried to be good, I would not always succeed. Fibs (lies) to cover silly pranks came all too easily. It was easy to show favoritism to popular kids, or to grow angry if I did not get my way. At any rate, it became clear to me that I was not able to meet God's standards on my own.

It was then that I turned to the promises of scripture such as:

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3:21-26

I no longer had to be good in my own strength! All fall short of God's glory, but He has provided a way of escape:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

Ok, I can hear the protests already - "You can't use the Bible to prove itself." I know that, that's why I said earlier that this is a description of how I got to where I am now. A better question is to ask me, why do I still hold to this belief, and why do I have confidence that it is true?

Christianity in its pure form is not a religion, in that it is not man striving to do what he has to do to reach God. It is God reaching down in love to sinful man and restoring a relationship that was lost when man rebelled against Him. I have that relationship, and I know that it is real. I cannot prove it to you, but for me to deny it would be like me denying that I am married to my wife. He has been with me through times of joy and times of sadness, times of trouble when I had no strength to go on alone.

You also ask about those who believe differently, I have already said that I do not make my own judgment of them. I believe that God loves all people, and I believe that He wants to redeem all people. I also know that all are sinful and cannot make it to God on their own. How God deals with people who have not been exposed to Christianity, or those who believe other faiths is up to Him. I am responsible for how I respond to what has been revealed to me.

You are really pulling out the long Posts from me, something that is unusual for me. But this is actually the short form of why I believe what I believe. I could have written much more, and still offered no more proof. I have not posted this before because I know that it will not satisfy you, but you have asked for it repeatedly, so there it is.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

QuarianRex :

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A mythology does indeed relate the moral values of a culture.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is not at all what I said. In fact, that does not even follow from what I said in any way.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I fail to see the purpose of saying such a thing. All religious mythology was written by religious people. Care to enumerate?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was doing no such thing. You are again grossly misinterpreting my statements. If you want to compare the Odyssey to something, it would be one of the books of the Bible, not the entire Bible.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh really? Samson? David and Goliath? Jonah and the whale? These are fantastical tales just the same as those in the Odyssey, and they serve the exact same role within each culture.

The Odyssey is, for the most part, visions by various ancient Greek prophets and environmental effects attributed to the Greek gods. If you would stop being so provincial, you could see that both the Odyssey and the books of the Bible serve the exact same role for these different cultures. The Odyssey (and many other Greek myths) taught the Greek value system to the Greeks. The Bible teaches the Christian value system to Christians.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...and within the realms of ancient comprehension and acceptance. What is your point?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All religious writings/tales are meant to be taken just as literally as the Bible. Maybe you need to learn more about other cultures. Well... the Bible was written in a language steeped with metaphor, and was not actually meant to be taken wholely literally. That is just an error made by people that speak a literal language.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would greatly appreciate it if you started reading what I posted, and not what you want me to have posted.

The Bible is indeed a collection of stories. So what? That is the entire purpose of the Bible: to be a collection of stories to help guide you to develop "proper" morals. That does not do anything to minimize any impact. In fact, that is the impact it has had. I have not forced it into any literary categories where it does not belong; I have merely stated the correct Category where it belongs, religious mythological works.

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

Alpha Kodiak:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is fine. In fact, this is infinitely better than ignoring my query, which a lot of people have done so far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So essentially, you believe what you believe because that is what you were taught to believe. That might work for you, but not for me. I could go into a long schpiel about how wrong that is, but it would definitely fail to convince you of anything, so I won't at this juncture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That, and I must leave now for hours of riveting classes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 20:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You do realize that the vast majority of what everybody believes they believe because it is what they were taught to believe? And this goes beyond religion, for the most part, everything that we believe that we do not believe because we witnessed it, we are taught to believe.