Social Gathering/Off Topic Thread

[dshipp17]

Your Roman example Romulus, strengthens my point that something that's intended to be an allegory or legend is easily understood, as Roman was a major Empire and Romulus did not survive it's golden age, mostly between 100 BC through 800 AD.

[slvn]

Thanks for sharing your long history of belief. I respect your faith. Perhaps because of the strength of your belief it's difficult for you to see why some of your "proof" is less than proof in the eyes of non-believers. None of what you have said persuades me that Christianity is entitled to priority over other religions in the eyes of those who do not already share its faith; but I will reiterate that it certainly deserves no less respect than any other religion. I think we're going in circles, so I'll stop for now if that's alright with you, but I enjoyed the conversation.


[QUOTE=dshipp17;15047329]

Of course, paradigms shift. I'm not sure why you keep blaming the US--I think that critical hermeneutics, along with more rigorous application of the scientific method even in the "human sciences"--started in Germany and was in full swing by the nineteenth century. But if you want to give the US full credit for the Scientific Revolution, I guess, as an American, I should just say "thank you."


I don't know why you think it's wicked for people to want more rigorous evidence before they can say that something has been proven. I DO understand why you wouldn't want people to tell you that what you believe is wrong just because it hasn't been proven. But I'm not saying that. Believe what faith moves you to believe. I respect your belief. But if you say,as you did on the other thread, that your religion deserves priority because of "indirect proof" of the existence of God, then I'm going to want to evalaute that "proof" by standards that I consider reasonable.



Well, that statement wouldn't have made sense even to Aquinas, who understood that in apologetics (for non-Christians) you can't prove scripture by quoting scripture. Obviously, a king named David could have existed and yet the Bible could contain non-factual legends about him.



All religions are different from each other, and I'm not saying it's "just" legend. Like many other ancient texts, it's probably an amalgam of legend, factual accounts, allegory, doctrinal teachings, etc.



How, without already having faith in the Bible, can I know that the above is not just a legend? Are there multiple sources that tell this story, or, other than the existence of David, is the rest only in the Bible? Even if the outward events of the story are factual, how do I know that Samuel was truly guided bu God and not just by his own faith or imagination? How do I know, without already believing that the Bible is divinely inspired, that the people who wrote the Bible down truly understood the inner motives of the characters? (If an eighteenth-century American observer said that an angel dictated the Declaration of Independence to Thomas Jefferson, I would want to know whether that observer saw the angel with his own eyes, how credible the observer was, whether other observers also saw the angel....)



There are multiple interpretations, supported by different sources, of the motives of various American revolutionaries. Fortunately, because it only happened a couple of hundred years ago and because it happened in a an age in which a lot of text was produced and preserved, we have multiple sources that we can look at to get a sense of what actually happened. We don't have that luxury with regard to more ancient events, so I think it makes sense, in all humility, to realize that there are severe limitations to what we can know with any kind of certainty about those events. Are you suggesting that if we have limited sources we should lower our standards of proof? I think that it would be more humble and accurate to admit that when we have limited sources we are often unable to convincingly prove anything.


It's accepted by people whose faith teaches them to accept it.For others, it, like other old (or even new) history books, is an interesting source of information but not, in and by itself, conclusive.



I'm not blaming the US; I used that terming because I knew you were from the United States; I'm a natural born United States citizen also; but living in the United States, I also understand how the country gives off the impression that they have the only credible information when it comes to evidence or science a lot of the time (e.g. say, whether a nutritional supplement has a certain value it's claimed to have).

I said the redefinition of what should be considered credible evidence started with people judged as wicked; you're saying something very different by editing my post and than responding to something I wrote; I don't think that I'm wicked because I once came across something that made me go, oh, yeah, maybe I should look into rather this is real and not just some allegory that I'm taking too literally; when I came across more and more evidence which I was satisfied with, my faith was recharged sort to speak, although I can say the first time I was exposed to any information as a very young toddler, the information from the Bible stuck with me in a very special, credible way; during that time, I also saw lots of things which included the puppets on sesame Street and the Muppet Babies, and I never even in the most remote sense thought they were real or could be real; so, my senses during this time was very discerning for my young age as a toddler; I believed everything in the Bible starting with the first chapter of the Book of Genesis and I whole heartily believed that the serpent tempted Eve in to partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; aside from my young intuition, the main reason that I believed the Serpent tempted Eve was that I automatically understood that the Serpent represented a being in opposition to God, that understanding helped me retain and justify my firm conviction the older I got and the more information that I was exposed to, even having nearly an equally keen interest in science; a lot of things fell out naturally the more scientifically sophisticated I got, but my conviction in the Bible still remained strong and got stronger; but, during my learning of science and excelling in science did start to weaken by making me become more arrogant in what I and the human race could be capable of; but, thank God that, unlike say Darwin and a number of other famous scientist, God saw me slowly slipping away and He created one of the first tribulations in my life at the time that I automatically sought out and rediscovered God, after which He blessed me by taking me back on top to the same level; I than embraced the Book of Job; so, the point is, that, similar to Abraham, perhaps, either you naturally have the faith you need to accept the Bible as the literal truth or you simply don't, but you can try and put in the effort and ask God to perform a miracle for you so that you can understand; however, believing or not believing will not exonerate you from the consequences of your decisions (e.g. becoming an atheist and outright denying any truth in the matter; it just makes you not a lukewarm Christian or makes you cold to the whole thing).

My faith does deserve priority because it has the most proof (or it clearly reads less like a myth or story and more like a history book by comparison); while we got head long into limiting the talk to Jerusalem, the gist of what I was originally saying was that Jerusalem has a collection of Biblical artifacts for the doubtful; additionally, the physical proof which I've been most concerned with was the existence of Jesus, which was confirmed, and His resurrection, which has been confirmed; the Bible clearly provides a chronological sequence showing that the tomb was discovered empty with Roman solders guarding the tomb, the reaction by Jesus' closest followers, the disciples, and the later response to brunt out the excitement by crafting a sequence where it was claimed that the body was stolen; this was just like thicker layer of icing on the cake for my convictions which I considered later in life.

Again, as I said in my prior post, but which you deleted away, only sources within an empire is likely to have the multiple sources which you think offers further credibility while the Bible was largely word of mouth from the populace at a time where the written record and documentation was considered credible evidence; requiring more came much later, as it distorted reality by tying proof to what can only be possible from the remnants of a major government and, on top of that, players within that government; but, most stuff considered pre-ancient history is mostly supported by writings, just like the Bible; and again, clearly, the Bible is less like a myth than your other examples; it's evidence by such because it clearly requires the most effort to even begin to consider it an allegory; because something is unlikely excludes God or limits God's abilities; God created reality, so, of course, He should be capable of things which we cannot fully comprehend and may never be able to fully comprehend; requiring comprehension demonstrates a lack of understanding of God's abilities or a feeble attempt to comprehend something that cannot be comprehended, especially with a mind of doubt.

[dshipp17]

[QUOTE=slvn;15047622]Thanks for sharing your long history of belief. I respect your faith. Perhaps because of the strength of your belief it's difficult for you to see why some of your "proof" is less than proof in the eyes of non-believers. None of what you have said persuades me that Christianity is entitled to priority over other religions in the eyes of those who do not already share its faith; but I will reiterate that it certainly deserves no less respect than any other religion. I think we're going in circles, so I'll stop for now if that's alright with you, but I enjoyed the conversation.


Well, if you can't tell the difference in something that reads like an allegory from something that reads like a history, than I suggest reading again, but, this time, without going there pre-determined to prove that what you're reading is an allegory; I believe that you think you've reached a level high enough that you're convinced that the Bible is an allegory; maybe God I'll bring you back around, one day; there were lots of non-believers that had to convince themselves that Jesus is real; that actually took a mind quite the opposite of what you're saying, a mind convinced that the source was false but that findings were needed to demonstrate such. But, again, the vast majority of Romans accepted Jesus over Romulus; all I can say it just took an open and rational mind to do that; I don't think that a predisposition for the faith is required to admit that what I've said is true, but being obstinate on the other hand is required to remain in doubt rather you're a scientist or not; I said that all of the Biblical artifacts one could hope for is there to be studied in Jerusalem, but you have to actually want to go look for the artifacts; not going there to see if something can clarify things for you basically demonstrates that you actually want it not to be true not that it's hard to accept that it's true.

[slvn]

Well, dshipp, I was going to stop, but I guess I'll respond. It's not a matter of whether the story of Romulus and Remus reads like an allegory to me; as a matter of fact, it does, and if I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a David (though I don't know how much of his story is historical vs. legendary) and I would guess that there wasn't a Romulus.

But I'd be guessing. There are historians who believe Romulus was a historical figure and there are historians who believe that David was not; even if they are in the minority, I don't presume to know for sure that they're not right. The point is that Jerusalem being known as the city of David doesn't "prove" that he was real, just as Rome having been thought to be founded by Romulus comes no where close to proving that he was real. (And, by the way,many Romans do seem to have believed this, not solely as allegory, however it may read to us; Plutarch says it was the most widespread and credible account of the origin of the city.)

I don't "think [I]'ve reached a level high enough that you're convinced that the Bible is an allegory"; on the contrary, I think it would be presumptuous of me to believe that I know how much of the Bible is factual and how much is not. You can call me "obstinate" if you want to, but I don't think it speaks well of your open-mindedness, charity or humility. Fortunately, I know other Christians who are open-minded, charitable and humble, so I won't hold it against your religion. (Or even against you, really--I've enjoyed talking with you about this, and you can think what you want about me.)

I said that all of the Biblical artifacts one could hope for is there to be studied in Jerusalem, but you have to actually want to go look for the artifacts; not going there to see if something can clarify things for you basically demonstrates that you actually want it not to be true not that it's hard to accept that it's true.

Hey, buy me a ticket and give me a stipend, and I'm there!

[dshipp17]

Well, dshipp, I was going to stop, but I guess I'll respond. It's not a matter of whether the story of Romulus and Remus reads like an allegory to me; as a matter of fact, it does, and if I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a David (though I don't know how much of his story is historical vs. legendary) and I would guess that there wasn't a Romulus.

But I'd be guessing. There are historians who believe Romulus was a historical figure and there are historians who believe that David was not; even if they are in the minority, I don't presume to know for sure that they're not right. The point is that Jerusalem being known as the city of David doesn't "prove" that he was real, just as Rome having been thought to be founded by Romulus comes no where close to proving that he was real. (And, by the way,many Romans do seem to have believed this, not solely as allegory, however it may read to us; Plutarch says it was the most widespread and credible account of the origin of the city.)

I don't "think [I]'ve reached a level high enough that you're convinced that the Bible is an allegory"; on the contrary, I think it would be presumptuous of me to believe that I know how much of the Bible is factual and how much is not. You can call me "obstinate" if you want to, but I don't think it speaks well of your open-mindedness, charity or humility. Fortunately, I know other Christians who are open-minded, charitable and humble, so I won't hold it against your religion. (Or even against you, really--I've enjoyed talking with you about this, and you can think what you want about me.)



Hey, buy me a ticket and give me a stipend, and I'm there!

In regards to Romulus versus David, my point was that the Roman Empire was the most likely to have the evidence which you claimed to be important to demonstrated that, Romulus had indeed founded Rome, one of their deities existed, and that deity had inspired or was involved with one of it's people like Romulus (this time, a distant Grandparent), than the Jewish people had to show that David existed, that the original name for Jerusalem was the City of David, and that God had an intimate connection with David; yet Rome lacked your type of evidence and abandoned the claims they had regarding Romulus, while the Jewish people still retain their claims regarding David and remarkably appear to have the better evidence of what they say about David is true in comparison to a major government empire that had the means to gather and retain the evidence, which includes one of their deities, which would satisfy you; and that's in addition to my point that the story of Romulus reads like an allegory, while the story of David reads like a history book.

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by those Christians being open minded and the context of your conversation with them; the context of our discussion is a point/counterpoint about the authenticity of information in the Christian sacred text, the Bible; I was implying that if a people most likely to cling on to their faith were willing to move forward and accept the truth, well into modern times, than only an obstinate mind would continue to say otherwise; but, sorry if you meet that description, but remain unconvinced, because I may not be the most persuasive right now, without further debated, so it's my fault or weakness to be able to be persuasive about information that I should (rather do) hold so dear.

If you're serious, well could arrange this trip of discovery to Jerusalem together; but I'll need to know how or if you're persuadable; but, the trip would be up to a week; we'd have to go multiple times; however, as a Christian, I'd be more putting on my Jewish hat, even though my specialty is more geared towards Jesus; you'd need to chip in 50% because we're having a debate rather than your conversion, so it appears; sorry for my delayed response.

[slvn]

Wow--I'm impressed and touched that you would put in the time and energy of a trip. I think I'll start with doing some reading, though. David and Solomon, by Finkelman and Silberman, sounds interesting, though it probably isn't what you would suggest. Any recommendations? The BibLe is a given, of course, and I know there are some standards like Bright--but anything that gives the most up to date analyses of the archaeological evidence.

To be honest, though, while it would be great to visit Jerusalem some day, learning about its history is of more intellectual than spiritual interest to me. I'm open to being convinced of the historicity of most of the outward, public events in the Bible, but I don't think that would convince me of God; it could convince me, for example, that others believed Samuel was speaking God and maybe that he actually believed it himself, but archaeology (as far as I can see) can't prove that they were right about that--there can be no physical remains of what happened in Samuel's ears and mind and heart when God spoke to him, if God did speak to him. I don't see how one can prove metaphysical truth with physical evidence--but if it works for you, have no objection! I just think it would take something more personal--ultimately, I guess, some ind of intuition that would turn into faith--to convince me that the Biblical God is real.

As to what sounds like history and what sounds like allegory or something else--a lot of that depends on what you already believe about the world before you read the account. If you look at Plutarch's Life of Romulus, it actually starts out sounding very much like a history book in that it acknowledges alternative accounts of the events it is about to describe, and he gives his sources:

"From whom, and for what reason, the city of Rome, a name so great in glory, and famous in the mouths of all men, was so first called, authors do not agree. Some are of opinion that ...But the story which is most believed and has the greatest number of vouchers was first published, in its chief particulars, amongst the Greeks by Diocles of Peparethus, whom Fabius Pictor also follows in most points. Here again there are variations, but in general outline it runs thus:..." (http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html)

There's stuff in the story that sounds like fantasy or myth, and Plutarch acknowledges uncertainty, but at least he is presenting more than one account of the story, citing sources, and letting us judge what in these traditional accounts might be fact and what is fantastic embellishment. Not that he's "objective"--of course, he has the Imperial point of view, and the purpose of moral education, and we have to read with that in mind, just as (I think) we have to consider what the religious and nation-building rhetorical purposes of the Biblical texts may have been. While the Romulus story had the advantage of being "official" during Roman times, Biblical history has had that advantage since Constantine, and that may be one of the reasons it seems more plausible to us.

[dshipp17]

Wow--I'm impressed and touched that you would put in the time and energy of a trip. I think I'll start with doing some reading, though. David and Solomon, by Finkelman and Silberman, sounds interesting, though it probably isn't what you would suggest. Any recommendations? The BibLe is a given, of course, and I know there are some standards like Bright--but anything that gives the most up to date analyses of the archaeological evidence.

To be honest, though, while it would be great to visit Jerusalem some day, learning about its history is of more intellectual than spiritual interest to me. I'm open to being convinced of the historicity of most of the outward, public events in the Bible, but I don't think that would convince me of God; it could convince me, for example, that others believed Samuel was speaking God and maybe that he actually believed it himself, but archaeology (as far as I can see) can't prove that they were right about that--there can be no physical remains of what happened in Samuel's ears and mind and heart when God spoke to him, if God did speak to him. I don't see how one can prove metaphysical truth with physical evidence--but if it works for you, have no objection! I just think it would take something more personal--ultimately, I guess, some ind of intuition that would turn into faith--to convince me that the Biblical God is real.

As to what sounds like history and what sounds like allegory or something else--a lot of that depends on what you already believe about the world before you read the account. If you look at Plutarch's Life of Romulus, it actually starts out sounding very much like a history book in that it acknowledges alternative accounts of the events it is about to describe, and he gives his sources:

"From whom, and for what reason, the city of Rome, a name so great in glory, and famous in the mouths of all men, was so first called, authors do not agree. Some are of opinion that ...But the story which is most believed and has the greatest number of vouchers was first published, in its chief particulars, amongst the Greeks by Diocles of Peparethus, whom Fabius Pictor also follows in most points. Here again there are variations, but in general outline it runs thus:..." (http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html)

There's stuff in the story that sounds like fantasy or myth, and Plutarch acknowledges uncertainty, but at least he is presenting more than one account of the story, citing sources, and letting us judge what in these traditional accounts might be fact and what is fantastic embellishment. Not that he's "objective"--of course, he has the Imperial point of view, and the purpose of moral education, and we have to read with that in mind, just as (I think) we have to consider what the religious and nation-building rhetorical purposes of the Biblical texts may have been. While the Romulus story had the advantage of being "official" during Roman times, Biblical history has had that advantage since Constantine, and that may be one of the reasons it seems more plausible to us.

Unless you accept as fact that God created the Heavens and Earth, or reality, than there was no physical evidence claimed to be left of God the Father; there is only indirect evidence such as God guiding and interaction with the Jewish people; the stone tablets which are the Ten Commandments is the closest physical thing that we have of God's existence, as the Bible teaches that God the Father, Himself made the tablet and gave it to Moses to present to the populace which were the Jewish people first; however, Jerusalem would have much more artifacts and sources, but I don't think the God the Father incarnate ever made a physical appearance, but that would be an irrational requirement to produce because God the Father just simple was, is, and will be (e.g. the physical evidence which you would require to prove the existence of God the Father would be a physical tomb and that will never be possible; the physical proof will become clear to every single soul in the afterlife, rather you're going to be a soul to receive judgment to depart from Him into the lake of fire with the devil and his angels or rather you're going to be a soul which God welcomes by saying well done my good and faith servant and granted entrance into Heaven to be in His presence for eternity and the benefit to physically interact with Him beyond your heart's content). However, we Christians do hold that God incarnate appeared and His form was Jesus Christ; we have written record that He walked the Earth outside the Bible; because of Jesus, we're reaffirmed that God exists because God incarnate took form; and since Jesus was who He said He was than we have the greatest evidence of the existence of God the Father; I agree, Constantine was very instrumental in the Romans adopting Christianity as their major religion; however, originally, the Romans opposing the Christians wasn't a thing that Jesus never existed, but a thing that the Romans needed to deal with a perceived threat to the Roman Empire, so they crucified Jesus and crucified or in some way murdered many early Christians; however, that made it easier for them to reevaluate themselves and embrace Christianity to reject what Romulus represented; they had literal physical evidence that Jesus existed but could never be located in the form of a corpse after His crucifixion, as such sparked the early Christians' enthusiasm.

By your standards, you could never demonstrate that you communicated with say a deceased relative; at some level, you'd have to just accept that God communicated with Samuel. I surely know that God has and does communicate and interact with me; I have an account that I could tell you that demonstrates that I have first hand knowledge that God exist; it's an experience that I firmly accept as true. Just as I've worked for the Federal Government in installations which I could not disclose or have information which I could not divulge, so have I communicated with God and know that God is an existing being of immense and incalculable power.

[slvn]

Oh, I agree that it would be irrational to expect physical proof of the existence of God the father, and I also believe it would be irrational to expect physical proof of the divinity of Jesus. And yes, to believe that God communicated with Samuel, I'd just have to accept it, in faith, without proof. I don't think that these things are provable--or disprovable. I respect the faith of those who believe these things, just as I respect the faith of other religions.

[dshipp17]

Oh, I agree that it would be irrational to expect physical proof of the existence of God the father, and I also believe it would be irrational to expect physical proof of the divinity of Jesus. And yes, to believe that God communicated with Samuel, I'd just have to accept it, in faith, without proof. I don't think that these things are provable--or disprovable. I respect the faith of those who believe these things, just as I respect the faith of other religions.

One correction, though; we do have proof of the divinity of Jesus (His life of demonstrated miracles and His resurrection; those were the keys or proof of His divinity as promised by the Lord Jesus Christ).

[slvn]

One correction, though; we do have proof of the divinity of Jesus (His life of demonstrated miracles and His resurrection; those were the keys or proof of His divinity as promised by the Lord Jesus Christ).

By "proof," I meant some kind of evidence that confirms the account in the Bible. Logically, the Bible can't be its own confirmation. While we may have independent proof of the life of Jesus, I'm not aware of any such independent proof of his miracles or resurrection.

[spormorehead]

Hi,
Are there any other web developers/programmers/DBAs here? I've been in the field since 1996. Given the plethora of English teachers and writers, I wonder if there's anyone here in my field.

[Scurlogg_Hawkk]

I try that thing once

[brettc1]

Hmmm.

It seems Gail Simone, Nicola Scott and the Dodsons are all going to be on the Gold Coast in two weeks.

BOO YAH!!!

[brettc1]

Hello all :)

With Gail being here in Australia this weekend just gone, I thought the time was right to put together a tribute vid for her work on Birds of Prey. Gwen helped with the dancing. Which it seems is a good think, since Scott commented on how much better she is at it [still got some dirt in my eye dude].

The only bad thing about doing this vid [apart from computer crashes...grrrr] was re-reading the issues and remembering just how good it was! Damn I miss it.

Thanks for all the stuff you signed Gail. I look forward to one day doing a vid for your Red Sonja run with Nicola Scott - though hopefully not for a few years :D

Enjoy everyone

http://youtu.be/91E1DkaWIZU