[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

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

Mephisto:

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

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

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

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

Mephisto:

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

BM:

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

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

[QuarianRex]

How disappointing.

[tesco samoa]

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

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

WOW eh

[DavidG]

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

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

[Chronon]

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

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

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

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

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

[ZeroAdunn]

Hey guys: Don't bother with the Mythology thing. I have had this argument with Fyron already, you can't win.

[ZeroAdunn]

and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

By this statement then, I can assume that the left behind series of books, the movie bless the child, and any other book/play/movie involving any religious figures/ideas is therefore a religios text?