Sparked from Lisa's posting of the Bible as proof of something in Rabbit's Abiogenisis thread, and bolstered by some reading and pondering I've been doing, I've got a question for you all.
1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
So first, the reading that directly applies:
quote:Not a single person or event known from the books of Genesis through 2 Samuel is mentioned in a contemporaneous non-biblical text...
We should also observe that the biblical sources for the earlier periods are remarkable unspecific. Although pharaohs of Egypt are described as having had dealings with biblical figures such as Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, none of the pharaohs referred to in the books of Genesis and Exodus is named by the biblical writers, so that we cannot fit them into the well-established chronology of ancient Egypt. Nor do Egyptian sources make any mention of the biblical figures. As a result, scholars have no conclusive answers to such questions as these: When did Abraham live, or did he even exist? When did the Exodus from Egypt take place, if at all?
That is not to say that there may not be some authentic historical memory preserved in the narrative of earlier times, but it has been so refracted by the lenses of various sources that we can say little about what may actually have happened. The farther back we go in the biblical narrative, the more we are in the realm not of history but of myth.
So, I guess, to start: How about Abraham. Who here thinks he actually existed? Who thinks he never existed? And who (like myself), doesn't really know, but also doesn't really care. He's become a more mythical figure than a historical figure, and the myth is well-known and well-told. The story is shared by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, although in different variations. There is something beautiful in that, regardless of the question of his actual existence.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In the purely semantic sense, I don't credit the idea that the Abraham of the Bible ever existed at all, by mere dint of being turned into the Abraham of the Bible. Perhaps some specific figure existed who was a basis for the story, though it's unlikely, but even given that, the Biblical story is unlikely enough to dismiss out of hand. So even if there was an Abraham, he wasn't the man described in the Bible, and so the Abraham of the Bible never existed. His narrative was written down a millennium after it is claimed he existed- if he is based on anyone, it is certainly *not* anyone from the period of which he was meant to be a part.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Without commenting on the subject of particular beliefs, and knowing that the human population is a maelstrom of competing and incompatible supernatural belief systems that literally change their Eternal Unchanging Truth with every generation, the entire concept at discussion here revolves around the fact that our various psychological biases and susceptibility to indoctrination ensures that #3 is unimportant to a 'true believer.' Once someone is convinced to the level of cognitive dissonance and choice-supportive bias kicking in for sure, the internal mechanisms for justifying a belief to yourself render that critical review is reflexively shut down.
we do it with politics too!
Posted by Darth Ender (Member # 7694) on :
The White Whale does not exist. The only evidence is here in hatrack
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes, I believe that Abraham was a real man, and that he was a prophet of God.
[ June 22, 2010, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: 1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
Wait....Is this a trap? If not, well then here we go:
1) I believe that most if not all of the prophets mentioned in the Bible actually existed. Names may not be correct or even the same, but I believe that someone actually experienced the things described in the Bible.
2)Its a personal belief. I'm LDS, and I also read the Book of Mormon. It supports the existence of Abraham, Moses, and other prophets mentioned in the Bible. Experts? To a lesser extent. I grew up in a house that had sporadic scripture study. I went to four years of seminary in high school. To be honest though the bulk of my belief and faith in my church was gained in my mission, through experiences I had and the study I performed.
I was told in the scriptures that if I lived my life a certain way, my quality of life would improve. I tested this, and I found that the scriptures were correct. I shared my findings with others and challenged them to do the same, and for many of them they also had an improvement in their quality of life.
3) Not a whole lot. The teachings in the Bible are what is important, not the people that experienced them. Abraham for example showed faith, courage, and sacrifice. Whether a man named Abraham actually existed or not is not as important as the message of the story.
On the same note, I would say that there is person that I would say is very important whether they existed or not, and that is Jesus Christ. Without Him nothing else would matter.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*muses* Of all the reasons I heard on my mission for doubt, I think the guy who didn't believe that Joseph Smith had ever existed stimied me the most.
Not Mormon. Not Jesus Christ. Not Abraham. He thought the very existence of Joseph Smith was a fairy tale.
quote:1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
1. Most of the ones mentioned, although I have to admit that there I wouldn't be heartbroken if Adam and Eve were metaphorical, and I also think the whole Elijah/Elisha thing sounds mythical to me. Most of the people in the Old Testament I'd be fine with turning out to be metaphorical, although I think the story of Abraham and the next four generations or so is simply too good and rings too true to be made up.
2. Same as Geraine above.
3. Not too much, as long as Jesus Christ lived. I do absolutely love Moroni, so I'd be really sad about him not being real. Moroni, son of Mormon, not Captain Moroni. Captain Moroni sounds kind of mythical to begin with.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm pretty sure only the people who are not only named but cross-referenced in ancient texts (the Bible doesn't count) actually existed in ancient times. Anyone who wasn't mentioned wasn't really real. So there were really very few people alive a few thousands years ago. Our big global population explosion happened around the same time we started keeping reliable, lasting written records that didn't discredit themselves by mentioning God in any way. Now lots of people exist. Don't believe me? Just open a phone book.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
quote:1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
1. I think everybody in the past who lived actually existed. But really, somehow I have a complete faith that all of the major folks in the Old Testament, New Testament,and Book of Mormon. As someone else mentioned above, they may not (most likely not) have the names listed in those books, and some (if not many) of the events ascribed to them may not have happened the way they are portrayed. Many of the stories may be combinations of events or people into one, which leads to the mythic quality of so much of it all.
2. I believe this because of what some people would probably call brainwashing. I was taught these things from my babyhood. I have immersed myself in these three books (and others) which tell the stories of these people to the point that they are so much a part of my own story that I can't imagine them not being real.
3. It actually matters a lot to me that these people be real. Though, as I said earlier, the stories as they are told may not be as reality actually was. It matters because, also as I said earlier, their stories are part and parcel of my own story -- they are a part of how I identify who I am, what I stand for, and why I act as I do.
Do I think that the numbers of people listed in the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon are accurate? No.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Sala += 1;
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
" It actually matters a lot to me that these people be real."
The first step towards recovery is admission of a problem. I consider this an admission even if you don't. Congratulations.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed?
Santa Claus.
2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else?
The explanation of his existence is plausible. All stories come from somewhere, even most fictional characters are based on some experience the author has had. There are also, I believe, contemporary records of his existence.
3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
It doesn't matter at all, going forward, but it matters very much in determining how we got where we are.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm honestly fine with people who are in Sala's boat and stay that way. If you're honest about what you don't know and why you believe what you do, and are getting something good out of it, then I can't in good conscience recommend abandoning your beliefs unless you had another community/worldview ready to fill the void that would result by its abandoning. (Such alternate communities and worldviews exist, and can be quite satisfying, but switching over to them requires effort and real life companions, and its up to the individual to decide if they have the support and desire to make that transition)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, why stop drinking if all your friends drink. I agree.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As long as you're drinking responsibly, yes.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
advice for robots, I have to appreciate the zing there. Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Raymond Arnold: I have no idea what you mean by "Sala += 1;" but I do appreciate your second comment about my boat and the people who are with me in it! I have no problem with others having alternate worldviews from mine. I see no reason to switch from my particular worldview.
I thought I'd give it a try . . . replying honestly to a thoughtful religious question on this board, even though I knew I probably shouldn't. I've seen how some folks on this board just can't seem to restrain themselves from being rude and berating anyone who has a religious point of view rather than responding to the questions posed. So, Raymond Arnold, thanks for being considerate of my point of view.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Sala, thanks for posting. And no, this is not a trap. I'm genuinely curious. Please ignore any smarminess you might encounter.
I (as many here know) am an atheist, and am vary curious as to why other people believe what they do. For me, it seems very unlikely that Adam or Eve or Abraham existed. The fact that they have been focused on by multiple cultures for thousands of years, in my mind, puts them much more in the league with mythical figures.
I admire people who believe these things based on faith or (Sala's words) brainwashing, and can see and admit that it's not a belief that can be rationed and explained to others. I have trouble when people insist it's true because the Bible says so, because that reason simply holds no weight for many people. It's an appeal to a non-universally recognized authority.
Like I said in the other thread, there are some beautiful and powerful stories and ideas, but by no means are they ubiquitous and their historical accuracy is nowhere near certain. If people appeal to the historical accuracy, I think they are wrong and if they can't see why they are fooling themselves. If they appeal to the #3 of my OP, then I'm fine with it.
I am confounded by the anger, or shocked indignation, or recoil, I sometimes encounter when I state that the Bible is not a valid authority to appeal to. For a lot of people, the default is that everything is true, and there are exceptions here and there. For me, the default is that none of it is true; it's a story, not a history book. I need convincing, or a decent argument, or something to make be believe that any single thing in it actually happened.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Michael Coogan: [QUOTE]Not a single person or event known from the books of Genesis through 2 Samuel is mentioned in a contemporaneous non-biblical text...
That's not necessarily the case at all. For example, I think the evidence shows that the Pharaoh of the Oppression (the one just before the guy at the time of the Exodus) was Pepi II of the Egyptian 6th Dynasty. So yes, he's very much mentioned in a contemporaneous non-biblical text. Just as an example.
quote:Originally posted by Michael Coogan: When did Abraham live, or did he even exist? When did the Exodus from Egypt take place, if at all?
Abraham was born 500 years before the Exodus. The Exodus took place 475 years before Solomon became king. Solomon became king 414 years before Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Do the math.
quote:Originally posted by Michael Coogan: That is not to say that there may not be some authentic historical memory preserved in the narrative of earlier times, but it has been so refracted by the lenses of various sources that we can say little about what may actually have happened. The farther back we go in the biblical narrative, the more we are in the realm not of history but of myth.
That's one opinion, I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: So, I guess, to start: How about Abraham. Who here thinks he actually existed? Who thinks he never existed? And who (like myself), doesn't really know, but also doesn't really care. He's become a more mythical figure than a historical figure, and the myth is well-known and well-told.
I agree in part. Yes, I think he existed. But no, we know very little about him. The Bible recounts a handful of moments in his life. For all we know, he had bad breath and something of a temper. We don't actually care about the historical Abraham. We care about the character that's presented to us.
If I wanted to tell the story of a guy from Illinois who wanted to go into politics but was a complete failure, I could use Abraham Lincoln. Just by not mentioning the fact that he later became president. From the standpoint of modern historiography, that would be a distorted portrayal. But the Bible isn't that kind of history. It's intentionally didactic.
But yes, all the people in Genesis were real people. Same with most of the books of the Bible. Job may have been fictional.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Your opinions differ greatly from those of biblical scholars. Who should I believe? You, who states disputed facts with unfounded confidence, or the biblical scholars, who actually weigh facts with their plausibility and authenticity, and try to come to conclusions that anyone with a rational mind can agree with?
You are overly confident, and the authority you keep appealing to does not hold the weight you seem to think it does.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
She's citing biblical scholars. (For at least some of those claims.)
Not ones you would accept, perhaps, but nonetheless.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
quote:I am confounded by the anger, or shocked indignation, or recoil, I sometimes encounter when I state that the Bible is not a valid authority to appeal to. For a lot of people, the default is that everything is true, and there are exceptions here and there. For me, the default is that none of it is true; it's a story, not a history book. I need convincing, or a decent argument, or something to make be believe that any single thing in it actually happened.
White Whale, I too am confounded by the anger, shocked indignation, or recoil that you (and I) have experienced. My personal belief/faith/brainwashing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is that the Bible is very fallible. It was written, and rewritten, and retranscribed, and retranslated so many times that, to me, it can't possibly be the infallible Word of God. And yet, despite that, I still think these people existed. To me, their stories have been repeated so many times and in so many places BECAUSE they existed and people picked up on their stories.
I'll try to ignore the snarkiness. I know it's ubiquitious on this board. Thanks for reassuring these questions were not a trap. There've been too many times when it appeared that they were in other threads.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I see no citations. Lisa, could you please provide them? I'll follow them if you provide them. ETA: Or are you saying the references to the books of the Bible are the references to biblical scholars?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
1. I think most figures of the Old Testament probably existed, although I'm not sure what to make of Adam and Eve. I am not sure to what degree their stories accurately reflect what really happened to them though.
I also believe in the existence of The White Whale.
2. I believe in them mostly because authorities I tend to trust claim they existed historically, because it fits in with my other beliefs, and because there's not really any good reason to doubt they did.
3. As far as the Old Testament goes, I don't really think their actual existence is that important. I see the OT being more important as lessons about how to live, and about background to the larger story of the Bible, rather than as a historical timeline of events.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Raymond Arnold: I have no idea what you mean by "Sala += 1;"
I was mentally running a line of code in my head that gave you a point for being cool.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Raymond Arnold: Gracias!!! Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I see no citations. Lisa, could you please provide them? I'll follow them if you provide them. ETA: Or are you saying the references to the books of the Bible are the references to biblical scholars?
That's a toughy. I don't know if there's any place that says, in so many words, "Abraham was a real person". Just because the idea that he wasn't probably never even occurred to anyone. You know, since we're descended from him and all.
I could point you to Rashi, or the Rambam. I could point you to the Talmud. But it's all kind of a waste of time, because I'm well aware that you aren't going to accept those sources. But you did ask, so I did answer. Even knowing that you'd spit on the answer.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think TWW was more referring in that request to some of your other claims about, for instance, the pharoahs.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
This is an interesting read by James E. Talmage, who was in the leadership of the LDS church. It was written in 1931, so keep that in mind.
I believe that every holy book except the bible is literally true and historically accurate.
They just are, and anyone who disagrees is a ding-dong-dummy nanny-nanny-booboo.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As long as you're drinking responsibly, yes.
But, no one anywhere can possibly drink responsibly!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Believing in god responsibly is like doing meth "responsibly."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Throwing my two cents in, I don't believe the Biblical characters existed in any meaningful way.
What I mean when I say 'meaningful way' is primarily to do with the supernatural attributes associated with the characters.
An historical Abraham may have existed. But I see no good reason to believe he ever communicated with any sort of deity or emissaries of said deity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I believe in tautological authority because it is true. Ergo, *insert given holy book based argument here*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Believing in god responsibly is like doing meth "responsibly."
Of course it is! Now, I realize evidence is something religious people have to have, not you, but still, some would be just delightful:)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How does one responsibly base their life choices on the voices in their head, and dictate others' lives based on same?
It is only acceptable when it is based on the regional creation myth of choice.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
We've discussed this a few times before.
I think that this is a good link that explains Mass Revelation. Its' not the - "The Bible says it's true, so it must be true," argument.
The power of tradition and the veracity of the links in the chain are only powerful because they are rooted in the mass revelation.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The same way competing religions are, but I don't think you consider Zeus or Odin real gods, even though they had mass revelation in their time.
You obviously don't follow Allah. Or Xenu.
That argument doesn't even hold weight for you.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Armoth, thanks for that link. It was very interesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think that this is a good link that explains Mass Revelation. Its' not the - "The Bible says it's true, so it must be true," argument.
quote:Let's begin with believability. No other religion sect or cult, from the beginning of time until the present day, has even made the claim that the Torah makes: that more than one person heard God give them their divine mission here on earth.
Wow, that isn't even remotely true.
quote:We the Jewish people make such a claim: Millions heard God speak. How could such a claim ever be accepted if it did not occur?
1. 'Accepted' for a very specific given definition of 'accepted.' Two groups fall into accepting it. One a subset of a fractionally small religion, no more than 8-9 million people. The rest of the people who believe it are not part of the jewish religion at all and believe things which judaism explicitly denies anyway.
2. - go back in time to a primitive pre-mass-media era - have a religious authority claim that a prior generation had experienced such a mass revelation - maintain this claim in holy writ - teach it to future generations of the religion in question
ta-da
[ June 23, 2010, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp - Both Islam and Christianity rely on the Jewish Mass revelation. 2 Billion people.
As for your second point, time travel or God. Which is more probable to you?
ta-da! Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The same way competing religions are, but I don't think you consider Zeus or Odin real gods, even though they had mass revelation in their time.
You obviously don't follow Allah. Or Xenu.
That argument doesn't even hold weight for you.
MC, do you mind educating me on the Zeus and Odin mass revelations?
As for Allah - the burden is on Islam and Christianity to explain why Judaism is no longer correct, not on Jews to explain why they don't follow Allah, as again, both religions rely on the Jewish mass revelation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp - Both Islam and Christianity rely on the Jewish Mass revelation. 2 Million people.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
MightyCow,
quote:How does one responsibly base their life choices on the voices in their head, and dictate others' lives based on same?
It is only acceptable when it is based on the regional creation myth of choice.
OK, so first of all, you don't actually have any evidence, just a pithy question. Good to know.
Now, to respond to your question: of the 'voices in their head' tell them to do good, responsible things, and they do them, what's the difference? That's the first objection to a profoundly silly idea that religion cannot possibly be believed in responsibly, likening it to crystal meth. The second objection is that, obviously, you don't actually know the things they do really come from 'voices in their head' or God. You're guessing. Should the fact that you don't know compel you to belief? Of course not. Should your not knowing somehow transition into 'they're crazy and stupid'? Also no, of course not.
As for dictating others' lives, *shrug*. Give atheists a good, lengthy track record, and then we'll see whether it can be believed, or rather disbelieved, responsibly. Though thus far atheism does not seem to be an invincible shield against bad behavior, anymore than religion is a guarantee of good.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp - Both Islam and Christianity rely on the Jewish Mass revelation. 2 Million people.
Fixed that for you.
Islam and Christianity both have around a billion people. I wasn't referring to how many ppl witnessed the original.
I hate the "fixed that for you" thing... Stupid online customs.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rakeesh: Thanks for reminding me to go back to ignoring your tired bs.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Armoth: Zeus fathered a number of half-god children, Yhwh only one. Odin visited Midguard in the flesh and personally interacted with people on many occassions.
Your insistence that this Mass Revelation is somehow solid evidence is just cherry picking what your religion wants to claim as important. If you say that many god-children make a religion more true, or that many personal sightings of the God make it more true, then you need to follow another religion.
I'm pretty sure that KoM has mentioned Mass Revelation by the Norse Gods, and there have been mass revelation of UFOs and Virgin Mary in windows and statues.
I guess you have to admit the OT is false now, since it claimed that any other Mass Revelations would nullify it
That was easy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp - Both Islam and Christianity rely on the Jewish Mass revelation. 2 Billion people.
As for your second point, time travel or God. Which is more probable to you?
ta-da!
Time travel is actually consistent mathamatically and is generally accepted as theoretically possibly if albeit something close to a physical practical impossibility at this juncture.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
You need to think through the Mass Revelation argument before you are so dismissive.
The Mass Revelation is only a potent argument if the probability of alternative explanations is lower than simply believing in truth behind the mass revelation. The Bible discusses a mass revelation of the type where the people had God speak to them "face to face" so to speak. There was thunder, lightning, fire, smoke, and the actual experience of prophecy by the populace.
Now, you take the book that describes that and you present it to a nation and say - btw, all that stuff? That happened to your parents. So the issue with the acceptance of that book is that anyone who reads that will deny it because if it happened to their parents, they would have known. If you are familiar with the Bible, its presentation as a whole to another people would also seem implausible.
Think about what the Bible says in it, and think about the plausibility of a group of ppl accepting it. It is fundamentally different if I try to convince you that God is talking to me than if I try to convince you that God spoke to you, remember?
The other examples that you mentioned are folk tales that do not fit into "Mass Revelation" for the simple reason that there are alternative explanations for why people believed. Saying that someone was Odin in the flesh? Half-God children? That's not Sinai. Not even close. And the "mass" part is not even there either.
MC - I'll continue to discuss this respectfully. But please don't be snide. This is not a game to me, if you can respect me and discuss, let's do it. No more ta-das, no more "that was easys" - I'm a real person at the computer, please treat me like one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp - Both Islam and Christianity rely on the Jewish Mass revelation. 2 Billion people.
Re-read my post.
quote:Two groups fall into accepting it. One a subset of a fractionally small religion, no more than 8-9 million people. The rest of the people who believe it are not part of the jewish religion at all and believe things which judaism explicitly denies anyway.
Group one: practicing jews Group two: christians & muslims, etc.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Armoth: I apologize for offending, but it is silly, from my perspective, how easily you will dismiss the claims of other traditions, while expecting me to see the validity of yours.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I read it. I don't see what separating the groups does. Christianity and Islam relies on the truth of Judaism. They believe that Jesus and Mohamed are Jewish prophets. Their religions both have to harmonize with Judaism. They contend with and affirm the mass revelation.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't think any of them have it right, so pointing out that they use the same book isn't very compelling to me.
You said that the point of mass revelation is that it makes more sense than the alternative.
The alternative I would give is that someone made it up some time after the fact, and pretended that it had always been that way.
We have always been at war with East Asia. You only have to fool people for one generation and pretty soon nobody is around who knows any different.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh: Thanks for reminding me to go back to ignoring your tired bs.
OK, to recap:
I ask a question, you fail to answer, I point it out. That's 'tired BS' to you. Gotcha. I note with a total lack of surprise that you have still failed to provide evidence that religion cannot be believed in responsibly, that it is as dangerous and universally harmful as crystal meth. It doesn't appear to much matter if you ignore me or not-either way, you don't respond to challenges to make your own statements live up to your own purported standards.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Armoth, what I don't understand is why you think it would be so hard for a small tribe of people to simply decide to lie to their kids. After all, you essentially believe that's what every other religion on Earth has done, to one degree or another.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A better question is, "Why do you think it would be so hard for a small tribe of people to be mistaken about something, and tell that mistake to their children as the truth?" The answer, of course, is that it would not be hard at all. It happens all the time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I read it. I don't see what separating the groups does. Christianity and Islam relies on the truth of Judaism. They believe that Jesus and Mohamed are Jewish prophets. Their religions both have to harmonize with Judaism. They contend with and affirm the mass revelation.
And yet, from your perspective, they have gone on and added fairy tales (divinity of Jesus, etc) to it to create an entirely new religion which then subsequently entirely overshadowed yours. they now use this 'super strong proof' of incorrect religions and false gods, and they didn't even have to be the religious group that made the claim in the first place.
Get what's happening? From your perspective, a religious group is taking a claim about something which apparently happened many generations before, and is co-opting it to teach a false religion. Then, other religions with mass revelations are, simply, ignored as false (records in the Heimskringla, etc).
in addition, the platform you are working on, the 'explanation' of the 'validity' of the mass revelation argument, opens up and acts as central to its argument a number of claims which are completely false! The whole thing is a litany of fallacious thinking and completely historically inaccurate claims. Are people supposed to give credence to the mass revelation argument because the Jews present a more audacious easily potentially fabricated claim than other religions apparently do?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
A claim being potentially mistaken doesn't imply we should just assume it is mistaken.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: A claim being potentially mistaken doesn't imply we should just assume it is mistaken.
In the link armoth provides, the argument for how the mass revelation is proof of the truth of judaism is accompanied by questions like this.
quote:How could such an event have occurred without anybody ever having mentioned it?
and
quote: How could such a claim ever be accepted if it did not occur?
the answers as to how this could easily find itself accepted are numerous and easily more plausible than the proposed statement that the 'evidence' is 'too strong' to be anything other than proof of the jewish faith being real.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I read it. I don't see what separating the groups does. Christianity and Islam relies on the truth of Judaism. They believe that Jesus and Mohamed are Jewish prophets. Their religions both have to harmonize with Judaism. They contend with and affirm the mass revelation.
I am no sure this is true in the way you seem to mean it. That Jesus was Jewish does not mean that I, as a Christian, need to believe the same things about the Hebrew Scriptures that a modern Jew might. It makes no difference to me if Abraham was a real person or a composite of people or a didactic myth.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
First, MC. Much appreciated.
The issue with somebody making it up after the fact is that the claim of mass revelation is too big to plausibly spread. I need a story for the first dude who began to spread Judaism in your alt theory. It's a lot easier to convince someone God spoke to you, especially if you're very charismatic.
It's important to note that Christians and Islam were not born in a vacuum. They had realities to contend with - and that reality was the popularity of Judaism in their time. That's not a proof, something's popularity, however, it made it a lot easier for them to accept the fact that God was speaking to one man - the fact that God speaks to mankind was something that was already established in their time as convincing.
Judaism is founded on the mass revelation - not one man. You have to consider how HARD it is to convince people that it happened.
It was not a "small tribe" the text itself that you say they tried to get people adopt said that at least 600K men between 20-60 were present at the mass revelation, and scholars estimate that it amounted to something close to two million people. The claim that that many people heard the mass revelation when you walk up to a new small tribe and convince them of something? It's pretty huge. I don't think that the answers to how "such a claim" could be accepted are "numerous and easily more plausible" and I hope that you understand why I think that the mass revelation is easily distinguishable from Zeus and others.
It should further be noted that the obligations of the Torah are often ridiculous. Jews cannot work the land once in every seven years. They cannot wear wool and linen together. In addition to many other stringent commandments that have been dropped by Christianity, probably because it would have been too difficult to get people to accept, Judaism has to deal with explaining to people who were never there that a giant mass revelation happened and they never heard about it before.
I find that when dealing with these claims, people are very happy to ignore history or the gravity of previous acceptance of claims. I think the chain back to Mohamed or Jesus is meaningless because I find the fundamental flaws in their first moments. But Judaism has no fundamental flaw in the first moment (unless someone can demonstrate a method of their origination more plausible than the truth of the claim), so the chain back to the first moment becomes very powerful.
Indeed, one of books of the Talmud begins by delineating who was the leader at every generation and who was the "master of tradition" in that generation. Maimonides in his principal work on Jewish law begins his book by giving the list himself - presumably because the validity of any truth we allege can only be as powerful as the previous link in the chain. Furthermore, knowledge of each member of the chain makes it that much harder to give an alternative theory to how Judaism was accepted. There is no foggy age - Whatever period Judaism was "made up" in would have to explain everything that was alleged to have happen up until that point in the chain to the next person in the chain.
Lastly, Samp - the fact that Islam and Christianity mistakenly believe what they believe because they rely on the mass revelation does not undermine the mass revelation, it strengthens it. Christianity and Islam have had to incorporate Judaism into their religions because they had no way around it. The flaw in both of their reasonings has a lot more to do with ignoring doctrine than ignorning revelation.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I read it. I don't see what separating the groups does. Christianity and Islam relies on the truth of Judaism. They believe that Jesus and Mohamed are Jewish prophets. Their religions both have to harmonize with Judaism. They contend with and affirm the mass revelation.
I am no sure this is true in the way you seem to mean it. That Jesus was Jewish does not mean that I, as a Christian, need to believe the same things about the Hebrew Scriptures that a modern Jew might. It makes no difference to me if Abraham was a real person or a composite of people or a didactic myth.
Maybe not to you. I am under the impression that you are a unique Christian in your beliefs.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Btw, whether or not you agree with me, I'd encourage you to keep all this in mind should you ever choose to re-read the Hebrew Bible. A lot of verses stress that miracles are to be transmitted, and when the people complain that God talking to them terrifies them so much, Moses explains that God is only speaking to them so that they should know Him and for Him to prove Himself to them, so that they believe in him and not sin.
It's cool stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I read it. I don't see what separating the groups does. Christianity and Islam relies on the truth of Judaism. They believe that Jesus and Mohamed are Jewish prophets. Their religions both have to harmonize with Judaism. They contend with and affirm the mass revelation.
I am no sure this is true in the way you seem to mean it. That Jesus was Jewish does not mean that I, as a Christian, need to believe the same things about the Hebrew Scriptures that a modern Jew might. It makes no difference to me if Abraham was a real person or a composite of people or a didactic myth.
Maybe not to you. I am under the impression that you are a unique Christian in your beliefs.
I am a special snowflake but hardly unique except to the extent that each of us is unique in our beliefs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
The issue with somebody making it up after the fact is that the claim of mass revelation is too big to plausibly spread. I need a story for the first dude who began to spread Judaism in your alt theory. It's a lot easier to convince someone God spoke to you, especially if you're very charismatic.
It's important to note that Christians and Islam were not born in a vacuum. They had realities to contend with - and that reality was the popularity of Judaism in their time. That's not a proof, something's popularity, however, it made it a lot easier for them to accept the fact that God was speaking to one man - the fact that God speaks to mankind was something that was already established in their time as convincing.
Judaism is founded on the mass revelation - not one man. You have to consider how HARD it is to convince people that it happened.
It really appears as though you're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, it's very hard to convince people, on the other hand, it's quite a lot easier if you're charismatic. Not that I grant the premise, though, that it's hard to convince people of things unless they're true. That happens all the time. For the popular modern comparison, see Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda as an example.
As for Judaism's popularity, if I'm not mistaken, Judaism has never been more, numerically speaking, than a minority belief. A small minority when looked at from the perspective of the whole population.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Christianity dropped Jewish law through justification by grace arguments from Saint Paul. Read Paul's letter to the Galatians. Being an Agnostic in a Catholic university can be fun as I am forced to take theology courses for my general eds, and due to that wonderful education I see some glaring holes in some of the arguments here.
For one, there are many ways to look at scripture and revelation. Islam certainly doesn't "need" Judaism as far as the truth of scripture as Muslims believe that God has revealed the truth to various peoples at various times in history. Islam is actually a universal religion as technically if you worship "God" they believe that you are worshipping "Allah." There are certainly many parts of their tradition that rely on the Judaic and Christian traditions, but the core beliefs really are not that tightly tied into it at all.
Most Christians do not believe in a fundamental interpretation of the Bible. Catholics take a middle view of inspiration and believe that word for word the Bible is not fundamental truth, and that revelation comes from tradition as well. What that basically means is that the philosophies of different thinkers, such as Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, end up becoming part of doctrine/"truth". All I mean by saying that is Christianity does not require 100% accuracy in describing historical events or physical laws to still be a "true" religion.
A lot of monotheism can be seen as a return to animist roots, that is simply respecting the forces that inhabit everything. That is, the physical world. Although I am rather sure all of the monotheist traditions would argue with me on that point, I still think its true.
That and the whole notion of divine revelation is the idea that it cannot be reached by rational thought and that rational thought should be used to extrapolate ideas from divine revelation.
In a nutshell, saying that some part of the Bible is not 100% or even that it contradicts itself does not go so far as to prove the belief system false.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Rakeesh - there is no contradiction. It is easy to convince people of something small. That God spoke to one person. It is very difficult to explain something huge - that God spoke to an entire nation, who are by the way are your ancestors, and here's a whole lot of crazy religious law that you have to adhere to.
Black Fox - I'm not sure what your post is coming to say. That Christianity and Islam don't rely on the Mass Revelation?
Christianity certainly seems to have a concept of an evolving truth, and because of that, it is a lot more fluid as to what people nowadays believe or don't believe. But Christianity in its original form relied on Judaism.
Maybe that can be explored further - I'd be curious to know the official position of the Catholic Church or other major Churches on whether or not they believe the mass revelation occurred.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh - there is no contradiction. It is easy to convince people of something small. That God spoke to one person. It is very difficult to explain something huge - that God spoke to an entire nation, who are by the way are your ancestors, and here's a whole lot of crazy religious law that you have to adhere to.
People get entire nations to believe things all the time, things that might not be true. Tens of millions more people today, for example, believe in a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda than ever had to be convinced of a mass revelation millenia ago. I'm not likening the two except to point out that your notion, that people cannot be convinced that something like a mass revelation happened unless it actually happened, is false. It's just patently false, Amroth.
It would be very difficult for you or I to convince people of such a thing. Very difficult, impossible in fact, for most people. But it can be done by some people. That's just a fact. We see it happen all the time, and down throughout history. People can be convinced of things that are wrong. Even huge things, sometimes even especially huge things.
Second, of course, you're omitting some of the packaging. It wasn't just 'some crazy religious law', it was 'some crazy religious laws' that must be abided by because you are God's chosen people. That is not quite as tough a sell. How many people could read, back when huge groups of people were being persuaded of these things? How many people really had to be convinced? The people who were convinced, how were they convinced? How accurate are our records on the answers to these questions, where we even have them?
The answer to that last question is the most important of all, actually, and it leads me to conclude that the issue is not nearly the slam dunk you're portraying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Lastly, Samp - the fact that Islam and Christianity mistakenly believe what they believe because they rely on the mass revelation does not undermine the mass revelation, it strengthens it. Christianity and Islam have had to incorporate Judaism into their religions because they had no way around it.
It can't strengthen it when it is a classic example of incorporation of earlier myths. it's not about 'having no way around it,' its about how myths constantly change and need no underlying factual basis. It all completely ties in to how what we know about myths and human gullibility (to say the least of how people were back then in a world devoid of mass media) voids the idea that the mass revelation is somehow required to be a plausible, likely event that is proofed because of the audacity of the claim.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
It is the idea that there have been other precedents that state that you don't have to adhere to crazy religious ideas due to Saint Paul stating that all you really need to do is have faith, hence why Christians eat pork and do not have to be circumcised.
That and Christianity in its early form amongst the Gentiles did not rely on Judaism, case and point being Saint Paul and his letter to the Galatians. The religion quickly moved from Judaic law into simply requiring there to be faith in Christ and God. Of course those aren't "all" Christians, but they are the ones that you could say won out in the end.
That and knowing the Catholic Church they would probably say that it occured in some capacity or another. The Catholic Church still recognizes the Jewish people as having a special covenant with God.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's really not that hard to get an entire ethnic or religious group to buy into fiction. It's happening right now. Scientology, for instance, perpetuates an obviously and clearly fraudulent history of, among other things, its chief prophet. He's come along recently enough that there exists numerous reliable documentation sources disproving all of the things that the religion claims as fact about him, but this is completely irrelevant to the movement's faithful for the same reasons why it is plausibly possible to perpetuate a myth about mass revelation. You just claim it on behalf of people who are now dead.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Armoth: I once attended a church camp, and late at night, when we were all tired, after two hours of sermonizing, the preacher asked the two hundred teens if they felt the presence of God in the room.
People started to stand up and shout. He asked again if we felt the presence of God, come down to share his love. We quickly realized that if we stood up and shouted, we could leave and go to bed, so we all quickly "felt God speaking to us."
Some of the people may have felt something, but many of us just wanted to go to bed. If the few true believers told their kids about it, they would say that all two hundred people felt God's personal presence, and while they would not be lying, they would be wrong.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But really, somehow I have a complete faith that all of the major folks in the Old Testament, New Testament,and Book of Mormon. As someone else mentioned above, they may not (most likely not) have the names listed in those books, and some (if not many) of the events ascribed to them may not have happened the way they are portrayed. Many of the stories may be combinations of events or people into one, which leads to the mythic quality of so much of it all. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)