FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Sacrifice of Christ (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Sacrifice of Christ
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
However, I don't think it really explains why the Atonement of Christ is necessary for progression. Couldn't people learn of their strengths and grow without it?
Again, I have asked myself the same question. I'm not sure I have a good answer for it. But I'm going to ramble some more and see if I come up with something. [Smile]

It seems obvious to me that people can grow and progress who have no knowledge of Christ whatsoever. Though my understanding of the gospel is that all mankind will eventually learn about Christ whether in this life or the next, and have the opportunity to accept His atonement and teachings to the extent that they are willing to.

It seems to me that there have been plenty of people on the face of this earth since the beginning of time who have tried to seek out "goodness" and in so doing have followed the principles of what Christ taught without knowing anything about Him.

Our doctrine specifically teaches that every human born possesses the "light of Christ" within him or her, the ability to sense goodness and be drawn to it. But evil is enticing also, so mankind is placed in a position to choose and use agency.

This seems to say that man left to himself may choose the good over the evil and draw closer to God without knowing much about God or even believing in Him for one reason or other.

But if I understand correctly, we cannot on our own merits reach that point of "perfect trustworthiness". We can become decent people, "decent" just isn't "good enough" for these purposes. That is why we believe in different kingdoms in heaven. There will be people who don't make it that far, but certainly don't merit or deserve eternal torment. The judgement determines that.

But at the same time, Mormon doctrine seems clear on the point that if the Atonement was not made, no kingdom in heaven, even the lowest, would be attainable by fallen (having sinned) mankind. This is not something that I fully understand. I take it on faith that I don't understand all of the forces at play.

It seems to suggest that without a hope of attaining a body once more--(and we are taught that we will look upon the time separated from our bodies as a bondage, something else I don't fully understand)--we would eventually become like Satan himself. That basically, we would not progress, but degenerate to become monsters as He is. I don't know why this would be, again, I am taking it on faith.

We don't know what it is like to be without a body post-mortal life. We don't know how we would respond to it over time. Particularly with Satan being free to influence us--perhaps more powerfully when we have no corporeal form to provide an anchor and no hope of ever receiving it again. Perhaps that is the key? Perhaps we underestimate his influence on us in those circumstances over time.

But the real answer is still: I don't know.

quote:
Since we're using Buffy analogies... I think that True Perspective as you relate it correlates to the way Angel reacts to getting his soul. He realizes how he's erred and he continually tries to make it better, knowing he never can. In great contrast, Spike gains this True Perspective and after a relatively short period of time he comes to the conclusion that since he didn't have True Perspective when he commited the acts, he wasn't really responsible. He gets over the guilt and simply tries not to "sin" anymore. Personally, I prefer the way that Spike handled the situation.
I don't remember him coming to that conclusion in the series Buffy--maybe it happens in Angel. And yeah, you've definitely got something there. Mormon doctrine teaches in more than one place that those who haven't received law are not responsible for living it. We are judged according to the understanding we've received. But we are also taught that no one can be saved in ignorance. Eternal ignorance isn't an option. Though the understanding may come in the next life. The question is, how will we deal with it when it does come?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
I have to go both to the store and to take my little one to gymnastics, so if this discussion moves on without me, I'll get back to it. I find it fascinating to discuss and see what other people's views are.

Considering that the doctrine of atonement was one of the reasons we decided to leave our last church (because they're teaching didn't agree with our own beliefs) I've spent a lot of time recently studying it.

It's amazing how many different views can be found even within Protestant Christianity.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:Lucifer/Satan said they were arbitrary, that God was just trying to spoil their fun, so to speak. And he's been saying it ever since.
In Perelandra, Lewis posits a reason for an arbitrary law... that there might be obedience and harmony between Man and God. Kinda like singing an arbitrary song for no other purpose than to have someone harmonize with you... or getting married... or group prayer and worship... or doing anything to be together with someone, wills in accord.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I take it on faith... the real answer is still: I don't know
This is what frustrates me the most about the idea that everybody must follow one path to achieve salvation. Beverly, I continually find your posts extremely thoughtful and intelligent (current ones included). And when even you ultimately answer "I don't know", I don't understand how people can expect others to convert. Unless you already have faith, it's hard to feel compelled to act.

If there is an afterlife, I hope that there is a Mormon waiting room type area like I've heard described at Hatrack, where you're able to obtain complete explanations (and the waiting room itself acts as a type of proof) and THEN act. Requiring somebody to take it on faith strikes me as absurd.

quote:
I don't remember him coming to that conclusion in the series Buffy--maybe it happens in Angel.
It's possible it wasn't presented on Buffy. [Dont Know]

quote:
we are also taught that no one can be saved in ignorance. Eternal ignorance isn't an option. Though the understanding may come in the next life. The question is, how will we deal with it when it does come?
I don't entirely understand what you mean by "no one can be saved in ignorance." I guess my viewpoint is that if you're ignorant of your sin, there's no reason why you need to be saved from it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
See, to me the concepts that everyone goes to some level of heaven and of the rapture are incredibly dangerous. They tell people that it's okay, you don't have to be ready now--you don't have to accept Jesus when you get the chance--you'll have time to do that later.

And what if you're wrong?

I obviously don't believe in either concept, because I believe the Bible clearly doesn't support either.

Of course, I'm not LDS or *whatever religions believe in the rapture*... so they have different interpretations and LDS has additional scriptures.

But the teaching, to me, is still pretty dangerous. I don't think the concept that you can wait to be saved is a good one or a Biblical one. If you're lucky, you'll be able to have that death-bed confessional, but if you turned your back when you were 21, 34, 48, etc., why would you get another chance when all doubt was removed? Faith should stand for something.

-Katarain

Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Unless you already have faith, it's hard to feel compelled to act.
Yeah, I imagine any conversion takes faith. But I believe that faith can be acquired if saught, that it is a gift from God since it comes in response to His communication with us. I believe it says in Revelations that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (ah, Rev 19:10), or something like that. From that I get that you can't have faith in these things until you've had that spirit-to-spirit communication. And since many people don't get that in this life, even knowing about the gospel, I think that God takes that into account and is merciful.

quote:

It's possible it wasn't presented on Buffy.

We have a lot of Angel to watch yet. I will be thinking about it when it comes.

quote:
I don't entirely understand what you mean by "no one can be saved in ignorance." I guess my viewpoint is that if you're ignorant of your sin, there's no reason why you need to be saved from it.
Well, neither do I. It comes straight from Mormon scripture:

quote:
Doctrine and Covenants 131: 6

6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

I assume that this means that knowledge will come. Anything that prevents knowledge from coming to us in this life will not be present in the next--whether learning disability, lack of exposure to knowledge, lack of ability to remember, whatever. All things will be made known. I imagine keeping mankind in ignorance strikes God as just as "evil" as removing mankind's agency. Ignorance is bliss, but it is a temporary state.

Katarin, why do you find it dangerous? In LDS doctrine, there is essentially 2 different types of hell. One is where spirits reside who have not received the gospel before the resurrection comes about. They are given as long as it takes for them to receive as much of the gospel as they will receive. And if they have pushed it away repeatedly, they cannot be part of the highest kingdoms of heaven. This is made clear in scripture. But if they never had a chance and welcome the gospel upon first hearing, or first *understanding* it, truly comprehending it, they will be blessed according to God's justice *and* mercy.

The second hell is only for those who deny all of God's grace and mercy entirely. They are basically monsters that no good can come from anyway. They refuse all good, period.

I find it to be a very beautiful, ballanced teaching. Much easier to swallow than the common Christian belief that most of the world, which tends to be full of relatively decent people, burning in hell for eternity because they didn't accept Christ. So many of those people would accept Christ if they truly understood His doctrine or if they had enough evidence to be able to believe. Having agnostic tendancies myself, I find it repugnant to punish someone so completely because something seemed to ludicrous to trust, even if it seemed perfectly good to them.

So some people will not be able to begin to believe until they are dead and find that they have not ceased to exist entirely. Thomas was told he was blessed for seeing Christ and believing, but that those who don't see Him and believe are yet more blessed. This is true. But those who require more evidence before they can believe ARE STILL BLESSED.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't really understand LDS doctrine, so I was basing my comments on the understanding I got from someone else's post that there would be levels to heaven, and the former impression I had that according to LDS doctrine, everyone goes to Heaven, but they're not all equal and you can work your way up or something like that.

The concept I find dangerous is that someone can do whatever they want on Earth, rejecting God and Salvation, yet still have a chance either after the second coming or the rapture to repent. I don't know about you, but if a bunch of people suddenly went missing, that would be a pretty big sign to me that the rapture was true after all.

So, the problem I have is that people might get the idea that it's not important to repent NOW, since they'll have a chance to later.

I happen to not believe in an eternal hellfire. I believe in eternal punishMENT, not eternal punishing. In that, if you choose not to be on God's side, then you will be consumed in hellfire in the purging of sin from the universe.

-Katarain

Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I had that according to LDS doctrine, everyone goes to Heaven, but they're not all equal and you can work your way up or something like that.
From my understanding, you can't. Basically, by the time the final judgement comes around for each individual person (at the right time for them), they are "finished". They have become what they are going to become. They have shown what they are able and willing to do. Basically, we are told in Mormon scripture, that we receive according to our desires.

And Mormon scripture also makes it clear that "deathbed repentance" doesn't work. You have to have time to live righteously. It's the "go and sin no more" idea. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who didn't know better. (Who knows the heart of the man on the cross next to Christ? He may have "sinned" in ignorance.) This applies more heavily the more understanding a person has. Those who procrastinate repenting, are going to be less and less likely to "qualify" for mercy. True repentance will be harder and harder for them, until at some point it simply becomes impossible.

Basically, if you've got knowledge, it is a responsibility.

quote:
Doctrine and Covenants 82: 3

3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

So maybe a person "wants" to be in ignorance? That's great. But when you are purposely holding off the removal of that ignorance, you aren't terribly ignorant, are you?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Sure. But that doesn't mean that in the context of the Old Testament, the God of the Israelites allowed that these competing being were real.

In other words, I can call my car Melangthcanesh the Beatific and worship it, and call it the great creator; that does not mean that Israel's God calls it equal. Or real, even.

In the context of finding out what the original form of Judaism is, I find the opinion of imaginary beings to be remarkably uninteresting. I want to know what the Jews thought of other gods; from the fascinatingly consistent way they kept backsliding, it seems clear they believed in their existence. After all, this is the time when Yahweh was throwing miracles around right and left to help them take their Promised Land; why would they leave a real god, who had demonstrated his power, for something made up by outsiders? You can hardly postulate that they were all really stupid; there must have been something in it for them.

Of course, since the rabbis were the ones keeping the records, only those duels of power where Yahweh happened to win would make it into them. I suspect the priests of Baal might have had an occasion or two to suggest the Jews pray louder, too, but we don't hear about it because they were wiped out by the Jews and later Romans.

Another point to be kept in mind is that the Bible is very much written by the winners, in an era when 'revisionist history' didn't exist as a concept, for the good and simple reason that everybody wrote what would make their side look good. I suspect that what the prophets call 'backsliding' is more likely to be the original customs of the people, which they disliked for some reason. Maybe there was a competing priesthood of Asherah, possibly even female? That would be a splendid reason to suppress them. Only so much offer-gold to go around.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I think Scott's point is that God could've been upset at idol worship because it was keeping the Jews from following the only real, living God the way the worship of riches, or a car, or fame, can keep one from God.

It seemed to be the biggest culprit at the time for getting the Jews to disobey God's commandments. Following other gods quite often meant doing things that were against the commandments.

quote:
Maybe there was a competing priesthood of Asherah, possibly even female? That would be a splendid reason to suppress them.
Or perhaps the worship of Ashera tended to lead the people to things like ritual sex? Such a thing is distinctively repugnant to the God that I worship. Such things were practiced among the Jews, apparently. Whether you think they were fully approved practices before "Yaweh changed His mind" or they were always disapproved of by God is difficult to prove at best.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
Katarain:

I personally put a lot more stock in the injunctions all throughout the scriptures to repent now, in this life. Whether or not we're able to make progress after this life, the greatest blessings and promises seem to depend on our righteousness in this life.

Two scriptures from the Book of Mormon that put a big red warning stamp on the idea that you can just repent and progress in the next life:

quote:

2 Nephi 28:8
And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

quote:

Alma 41:3-6
3 And it is requisite with the ajustice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.

4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to ginherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—

5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.

6 And so it is on the other hand. If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, even so he shall be rewarded unto righteousness.

This idea of restoration is much more in line with what gets taught in LDS meetings and conferences. It's not hellfire and damnation, but it isn't a cakewalk either.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Bev, you're arguing in circles. If the prists of Yahweh wanted to get rid of a fertility goddess, obviously they would suddenly get a 'revelation' that Yahweh really despised ritual sex, even though it had been perfectly acceptable up to then.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
That is one explaination. Mine works too.

Prove yours, since you claim it to be the right one. I take mine on faith. You take nothing on faith, right?

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws.
Sure. Why not? Is it possible to save yourself through works, or not?
No, because none of us is capable of working hard enough to make ourselves so perfect we can make up for the mistakes we made in the process. But the process of loving God means you say you're not God and that he is. Omnipotent, he leaves us to make our own decision about it. He won't force you into Heaven. Neither will he let you in without acknowledging that he is God and you are not. The acts of prayer and obedience are practice for the belief.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't offer mine as the absolute truth, though. Also, Occam's razor cuts quite nicely through yours, just from what is known about humans, politics, propaganda, and religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Nor did I. I never offer anything I believe as anything but what I believe to be true. Note I said "or perhaps" and "mine works too".


quote:
After all, this is the time when Yahweh was throwing miracles around right and left to help them take their Promised Land; why would they leave a real god, who had demonstrated his power, for something made up by outsiders?
Easy question to answer. We see this pattern in the Book of Mormon over and over as well. Their *ancestors* saw great miracles, but did they personally? The problem is they didn't see it for themselves.

But as we also see in the Book of Mormon, even when they *do* see the proof with their own eyes, they can still rationalize a way to go against it when "it" isn't an appealing way to go. A la the Israelites making a golden calf after the "cat is away" for a few days.

I'd be interested to see the pile of evidence, though that shows that the Israelites' worship of other gods was fine with Yaweh at any given time. The evidence you have provided so far easily has other explainations that make a lot of sense. I'm sure there is some out there, you just haven't provided any yet.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Again, I'm not really interested in the opinions of fictional gods. If the Jews themselves were fine with a given worship, I'm going to assume that the priesthood was finding it impolitic to enforce monotheism at that particular time; therefore, ipso facto, 'Yahweh' was ok with it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
From my perspective, I can see the priesthood being fine with it (ie: corrupt) and Yahweh being even more disturbed at the extent of the corruption, thus sending prophets to preach against it.

And I imagine these prophets would be very unpopular and often imprisoned or killed for their annoyances.

Hmmm, in fact, it seemed this is exactly what happened.

Why would a few, scant, unpopular prophets be interested in subjecting the masses? Why would they risk their lives for it? What would *they* gain from it? It doesn't seem to make sense. Occam's Razor seems to fall in my favor.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, what does anyone gain from blowing themselves up to kill infidels? Humans are quite capable of insane acts when they believe themselves in the right. Particularly if a rich priesthood is whispering that it's time to wipe out Cult X so Yahweh's temple can get more gold.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stacey
Member
Member # 3661

 - posted      Profile for stacey           Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry , someone may have already said this, I havn't read all the replys but what I have a problem with is that a person who has been a good person their whole life and has never done anything that should cause them to go to hell cannot get into heaven if he does not believe in God. But a person who has led a very sinful life like a rapist, murderer etc can get into heaven if at some point in their life has repented and turned to God. How is this fair?
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
Stacey, the way the protestant answers that is no one can get into heaven with good works. There is no such thing, in the eyes of God, as a "good person who lived a good life and didn't deserve to go to hell." The bible makes it pretty clear that God views all our deeds as sinful, because man has a sinful nature. Even our righteous deeds are as "filthy rags" to God.

So what is not fair, isn't that a so-called "good" person goes to hell, but that anyone is allowed into heaven. Because none of us deserve it.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Which incidentally is one of the things I find most repugnant about Christianity, or at any rate its Protestant version.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM: Yeah, I don't like it myself. But that's just me.

KoM, about the Jews worshiping other gods, a lot of this seemed to happen long after Moses' time, and he was the one who first gave the commandment not to worship other gods. In fact, we really don't have any OT writings before Moses, though we have stories about the times before. And those stories don't contain much about idol/other-god worship at all.

Seems to me that these unpopular, scant prophets going out to "reclaim the people for God" were just following commandments already given to all of Israel. In the light of the facts, your explaination just don't make no sense.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FoolishTook
Member
Member # 5358

 - posted      Profile for FoolishTook   Email FoolishTook         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sorry , someone may have already said this, I havn't read all the replys but what I have a problem with is that a person who has been a good person their whole life and has never done anything that should cause them to go to hell cannot get into heaven if he does not believe in God. But a person who has led a very sinful life like a rapist, murderer etc can get into heaven if at some point in their life has repented and turned to God. How is this fair?
Having spent many years trying to find a single element of reality that's fair, I finally realized that "fair" is something we impose on reality, not something that actually exists.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
When the archeology contradicts the text, I'm inclined to follow the archeology. Moses has some fairly mythological aspects himself. How many historical persons survive a nationwide infanticide (for that matter, how many of these were really ordered?), are found in a basket floating down a river, and live to the ripe old age of 120? And then there's the whole talking to gods thing. The existence of a real, historical Moses is, at best, not proven.

Here's Wiki on the subject (my emphasis) :

quote:
Several professors of archeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah (7th century BC) in order to rationalize monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Evidently, the neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Assyria, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G Dever, William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI (2003). Another such book by Neil A. Silberman and colleagues is The Bible Unearthed, Simon and Schuster, New York (2001).

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Foolish Took, I believe that God is fair. If He weren't fair, I wouldn't be inclined to worship Him.

KoM, if you want to discount the existance of Moses, I guess there isn't much point.

But considering how deeply important those stories have been for so long to the Jewish people, I find it amazingly difficult to swallow that they were introduced for the first time so late. That is a lot to swallow for brand, spankin' new history!

At least admit that it had to be based on something! To say, "Oh yeah, we've had these 10 commandments for the last couple millenia," why would the people ever except that, no matter what authority the priesthood claimed? They'd be laughed out of town. Talk about ridiculous.

Might as well say they made up the story about Abraham too. Except that there is another group of people who split off long ago that also believe in him.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Another point to be kept in mind is that the Bible is very much written by the winners, in an era when 'revisionist history' didn't exist as a concept, for the good and simple reason that everybody wrote what would make their side look good.
You haven't read the Bible then. Or you have, and are confusing points. Please explain how the above is compatible with

quote:
from the fascinatingly consistent way they kept backsliding, it seems clear they believed in their existence.
Not to mention all the warnings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, etc. If the Bible's writers were as revisionist as, say, the Egyptians, Gideon never would have made his medallion, Miriam would not have complained and been cursed, Moses would have entered the promised land, David would have turned away from Bathsheba, and Nebucchadnezzer would have taken Jerusalem by guile rather than through force of arms as the Bible reports (and by the blessing of God, as it also reports).

I don't think you want to accuse the OT God or his priests of only showing the sunny, non-failure filled portions of their histories in their scriptures. The record is definitively against you.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Eh, what? They've been important for several thousand years, and therefore they must be exactly as old as they claim to be? Non sequitur, that-does-not-follow.

As for a sudden introduction, plenty of people have codified laws, and plenty of people have claimed much greater antiquity for their traditions than really existed. Why shouldn't the priests teach the story of Moses to children, and explain it to the parents as a parable of how the laws were given? Not to mention that these were pre-literate peoples, they just didn't think the same as we do. I'm not trying to come off elitist here, just saying they thought differently; critical thought is a technology too, and we've learned something about it over the past two thousand years.

Remember the Ossian hoax? I assure you, in a pre-literate society that one would have slid right on in. Especially if it happened to suit the agenda of the educated class.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, to show any given prophet in a good light, he has to have some reprehensible backsliders to react against. The priestly class, as represented by its prophets, comes out quite well in all the stories you mention. As for Nebuchadnezzar, it seems a fairly obvious variant on 'We are advancing in retrograde to previously prepared positions in order to take advantage of our great victory', in other words, something happened that's so big that it can't be totally ignored, but a positive spin has to be put on it somehow.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I still think that these things would not be well received when there was no prior hint of them. It sounds like you (and others) are the one revising history.

It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't appear to have any evidence backing it up.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Could I just point to that stuff they dug out of the earth, again? You know, pots with Yahweh and Ashareth together?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, I missed anything about pots. Go ahead and point.

Out of curiosity, were any of these pots made pre-moses, or even pre-abraham? Or were they around the time when idol-worship was so rampant anyway? And if so, what the heck does it prove?

[ July 11, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah. Now I understand that I was right-- you really don't have an inkling about any of the stories I've pointed out.

quote:
The priestly class, as represented by its prophets, comes out quite well in all the stories you mention.
I use this quote as proof of your ignorance. Moses and Miriam CERTAINLY did not come off well in those stories. Miriam was killed and Moses forbidden from entering the promise land he'd waited all his life to enter. Not positive. Gideon wasn't a priest, he was a war-leader; ditto with David, and neither of them, in the instances I mentioned, would be held up as sterling examples of Judaism.

The 'priest-classes' (whatever that means) are not spared in the Bible when they are unregenerate. I give you Eli as a further example, and encourage you to search out the events of his life. (He's connected to Samuel-- just a hint.) Furthermore, Aaron had his moments of instability, and they are reported as such. So did Solomon.

It takes a very BIG leap of logic to report that the Bible's retelling of the Babylonian captivity is 'spun positively.' It isn't. There is no doubt that the God of the Israelites was completely unhappy with His people, and there is no attempt to soften the record.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, good point. Why would history revisors make the "good leaders" so very, uh, not good?

It don't make no sense!

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
How much of the myths of Gilgamesh, Hercules, and Buddha would you say were revised?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I can think of no epic heroes who did not at least temporarily possess a tragic flaw of character, and often more than temporarily.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know the stories well enough. But they are far more likely to have started as stories passed down casually from generation to generation, parent to child, rather than suddenly made up by a priesthood to hoodwink the people. That is just silly. And I have no problem believing that the tales started with actual people and actual events. Stories passed on are far more likely to have "tragic heros". Why? It makes a better story. Not so good propeganda.

If KoM were suggesting that Moses and the other OT prophets were passed down through the generations, changing the story as they go, I would be far more likely to concede the possibility.

But to suggest that these things were suddenly made up out of nowhere, *that's* what don't make no sense.

What is the problem with believing that they started monotheistic with Moses and the other gods were an influence of either pre-Moses "incorrect", and therefore discouraged, traditions, or later influence from the surrounding cultures. You don't have to believe in the God of the OT to see that that is very much possible, and it seems to me, more possible.

Let's just say that I'm an atheist for a minute. A story like Moses--I could see a great leader starting all that, being so impressive that the practices were handed down from generation to generation. Maybe some of the miracles and events were "exaggerated" over time, became embellished.

And when the people got "bored" with the old tales of miracles and boring laws, they went after the "new" and "exciting" gods of the surrounding cultures, or even their own older culture before Moses, or even Abraham, came along. So those who paid attention to the ways Moses introduced would see this as a grave error and would believe themselves called by God to reclaim the people.

Makes sense to me. And you don't need to believe in the actual existance of God for it to hold water. Why come up with this nonsense about it all being introduced cold later?

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Who was that question for, Tom? If it was for me, I'd have to say that the existence of a historical Gilgamesh, Hercules, and Buddha is, at best, not proven.

'Positively spun' was an unfortunate choice of words; try 'spun so it makes sense'. Obviously, if Bad Stuff happens to people who worship an all-powerful or even moderately powerful god, it has to be because the god is displeased with them.

Note that I said 'the priestly class as represented by its prophets'. Church versus state, perhaps? Or a power struggle internal to the temple, with a radical monotheist faction opposing a conservative, laissez-faire polytheist faction.

However, we are wandering a bit off the topic. The question was, how old is monotheism in Judaic tradition? Now, I've pointed to these pots with inscriptions :

quote:
Two painted inscriptions "Yahweh of Samaria/the guardian and his Asherah" on fragments of the type of large terracotta pot that archaeologists call a pithos were found in the site of a caravanserai of the 8th century BCE at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Negev.
I've also suggested that an old tradition of polytheism, represented in a revised history as backsliding and apostasy, is more likely than a primordial monotheism in total contrast to all the neighbouring peoples. This comes down to interpretation; I think the assumption 'monotheism was a gradual evolution imposed by an increasingly powerful priesthood of Yahweh' more likely than 'monotheism existed from time immemorial, but was often deviated from'.

As an indication of the unlikeliness of the latter assumption, how often have the Jewish people started worshipping other gods since, say, the time of Christ? It seems that once monotheism is established, it sticks. It is not obvious why that should be any different in 750 BCE.

Now, I think we all agree that there is no proof; but why don't you offer an argument for why the primordial-monotheism theory is more likely?

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
HRE wrote
quote:
Alright, so I know he exists and care what he thinks. This still doesn't cover any of the Jesus questions.
I didn't give you the answers you cited in your first post, so I can't really defend them. Though I can say that when I was discussing the fall with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and their essential view is that the fall was a tragedy. And in their viewpoint I, like you, asked why God didn't use his power and mercy to put it right immediately.

If you aren't interested in checking out the Book of Mormon, I'll have to rely on Matrix Revolutions. For all the flaws of the middle film, I thought it was interesting that they had Neo defeat the Smith entity by becoming one of him. It illustrates in some sense the thinking behind the Mormon doctrine that the Fall was God's will for mankind. It's not a perfect analogy by any stretch, but I can see how the movie would have been just annoying to anyone who didn't see that. As it was, having the big robot bug cloud say "It is finished" ruined it for me as art.

Anyway, if you really care what God thinks, you have the option of asking him yourself. I wasn't speaking of your questions with that remark, since I think your questions showed you did care. I was speaking more to the idea of recklessly and willfully sinful people (as I have been many times in my life).

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Further to the question of making things up; I think we all here agree that Genesis is allegory rather than literal, revealed truth? Then at some point, somebody made that story up, right? And apparently without getting laughed out of town, at that. If somebody decided to codify a bunch of general precepts that had been floating around the community for a while, and make a formal, numbered list of Commandments, he might well decide to make up a nice story about a primordial lawgiver, whose story was very conveniently set down on this clay tablet he'd just found. Again I refer you to the Ossian hoax, and suggest you consider the effect among illiterates. Consider also the legend of George Washington and the cherry tree. Or he might just tell the story straight, without expecting to be believed, just as a wrapper story around the commandments that everyone agreed on - making them easier to remember. There are plenty of possible origins for this kind of thing.

Edit : To be clear, I'm not completely disregarding the historicity of Moses; I was about to compare to the legends of Odin in Norse mythology, and then it hit me that, hey, I don't believe he did magic but I do believe he led a folk-migration from Asia. I may have gotten led a little astray by the heat of the argument. But I do stand by my theory about gradual monotheism; a pre-existing legend of Moses would be a very convenient peg to hang some stone tablets on.

In this context, I want to point out Odin again; I think we all agree that he did not, in fact, hang himself from an oak for nine days and rise again from the dead, so somebody must at some point have told that story for the first time. Perhaps he wasn't expecting to be believed; perhaps he gave a new name to an old story; perhaps he felt that the story of the tribe's origins needed a bit of extra spice, and his audience were willing to allow some artistic licence in the interest of whiling away a dark winter's night. Who knows? The point is, this kind of thing can and does get attached to real, historical figures, of whom perhaps only the name survives of their actual deeds.

Kine die, kith die,
and so at last oneself;
one thing I know that never dies :
How dead men's deeds are deemed.

But whoever said that was probably not aware of how the deeds get twisted and re-interpreted in preliterate societies. Even after writing and printing, how much do we really know about the motivations of, say, Oliver Cromwell? Between him, his friends, and his enemies, there's so much smoke we can't really see the fire.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As an indication of the unlikeliness of the latter assumption, how often have the Jewish people started worshipping other gods since, say, the time of Christ? It seems that once monotheism is established, it sticks. It is not obvious why that should be any different in 750 BCE
Of all the things you have said, this is one that actually makes a good point.

But why would monothesism win out over polytheism? Is it because it somehow "rings true" to people in general? Or is this a matter of whoever has the power wins out? If I'm right and the monotheistic minority was surrounded by a polytheistic majority, who would have the might? Do you really believe that all the nations trembled at the mighty power of the Hebrews as the Bible teaches, because if anything *that* smacks of propeganda. (Not that that is *my* belief, but I don't see why an atheist wouldn't believe it was propeganda.) How much pressure must there have been on them to adopt the ways of their powerful neighbors? Nobody likes the oddball.

Seems to me it would be difficult to maintain monotheism under those circumstances. They would need to be constantly reminded, constantly urged to return to the ways of their own history and people.

Christianity really "took off" when it was adopted by royalty. It was given worldly power that mounted and mounted resulting in it being spread far and wide. Whether this is God working in mysterious ways or luck, you be the judge. But was it the monotheistic nature that caused it to be picked up by the powerful? The persecuting Romans sure seemed less than impressed.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM, I imagine that the fantastical stories you are talking about happen gradually. I imagine that's how we got our American tall tales as well. Paul Bunyan probably was originally a real man, a very tall, strong, but realistically so, man. As the stories were spread by word of mouth, he got bigger and stronger, till even the differing stories weren't consistent with each other on his size.

Was there some conspiracy behind the telling of Paul Bunyan tales? Heck no! They evolved. I can believe in the OT tales evolving far easier than I can believe in them being suddenly introduced to purposely revise history to make it all look monotheistic. That means whether or not I speak as the believer I am, I think that Moses probably started out with the 10 commandments. Partly because I can't think of a good reason for him not to. Heck, if I put on an atheist hat for a minute, maybe Moses invented a monotheistic religion to unify the people. But I think even with my atheist hat on, I would think it started with Abraham. "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." I could see that being passed on down from that first family, something that really set them apart from all their neighbors, giving them a distinct identity that didn't mix well with others.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Why shouldn't a tale be embellished in a direction that suits the powerful? I mentioned Washington and the cherry tree; I'm sure there were also scurrilous rumours of him having affairs with this, that or the next woman he met on his campaigns. Which survived to the present day? Right, the one that suits the purpose of nation-building. You don't have to consider this a conscious conspiracy, even, though I can see where my posts gave that impression; just that the literate people would write down the tales they liked.

As for Abraham, this seems to me a rather arbitrary starting point. After all, there are two people in the Bible whom all humans are descended from, Adam and Noah; why are they non-historical, while Abraham is real? There's just as much evidence for the one as the other, to wit, they are mentioned in the Bible. If the Israelites could make up two common ancestors, I don't see why they shouldn't make up a third. I think an agnostic 'well, maybe' is the most indicated by the evidence here.

Why would monotheism win out? Well, why not? In Egypt, for example, they lost, despite being backed by the power of Pharaoh - like most 'absolute' monarchs who try to push through really, deeply unpopular projects, he found himself on the sharp end of a rebellion. There may have been lots of peoples where a powerful priesthood attempted to suppress all other religions, and only the Jewish ones succeeded. (And, naturally, in that case we only hear about the polytheistic version of their history.) Throw enough dice, one of them will come up six.

Your points about Christianity seem rather to reinforce what I said about Jewish stubbornness. In the time of the Kingdom of Israel, they had their own army to protect them - at one point, they were even a Great Power and could stand against pretty much anyone trying to convert them by force. (Not to mention that none of the religions of the time were really proselytising ones, except to the extent that dead people no longer worship their gods, and slaves don't have their own temples. Numbers 31 may or may not be real history, but it's pretty indicative of the sort of thing that went on in a conquest at the time. The Jews got off lightly with the exile.)

In contrast, by the time Christianity was powerful, the Jews stood against every attempt to convert them, even in the face of the Inquisition. (Which originally, you'll recall, was instituted to hunt down Jews and Moslems who'd converted publicly, but secretly practiced their faith.) Why would they be so steadfast in the face of modern state power backing a proselytising religion, and backslide so easily when they had their own state protecting their faith against far less aggressive cults? Are we to assume that Jews of the Middle Ages were so much more virtuous than their ancient counterparts?

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
at one point, they were even a Great Power and could stand against pretty much anyone trying to convert them by force.
When, exactly, was this?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Um, well. According to the Bible, that is. Possibly I need to be a little more consistent here. [Embarrassed] If we accept the United Kingdom under Saul, it was a powerful player in the Fertile Crescent; according to the Wiki

quote:
David waged several successful military campaigns, annexing Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and parts of ancient Aram (Syria) known as Aram-Zobah, and Aram-Damascus. Aram itself became a vassal state of Israel under David.
Going to the period of the two kingdoms, which seems to be reasonably well accepted among historians, you should note that even after the fall of Israel, Judah was able to stand off the Assyrians, and remained independent for another century. Even fighting on the defensive, this is not a negligible power we're talking of.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AC
Member
Member # 7909

 - posted      Profile for AC           Edit/Delete Post 
Paul Bunyan was created as an advertising gimmick.
Posts: 151 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM, did you or a close relative write that wikki?

Does anyone else see the irony of anyone quoting a wikki to answer questions about a historical validity of a document...particularly a document that someone is alleging was changed multiple times over history, and was used to espouse a particular viewpoint in a biased manner to manipulate what people believed was truth? [Big Grin]


HRE, I was really asking if you wanted a discussion, or were just making noise. This thread answers that question pretty well, I think. [Big Grin]


Tresopax:

quote:
I don't believe any church gets to tell me what I believe, though. I believe it acts more like a shepherd, helping to guide me, even though I still have to decide where I ultimately go.
Oddly enough, I think that is one of the only things you have ever said here that really resounded with me, and is perhaps the wisest thing I have heard in this thread.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM, Abraham was an arbitrary "start of monotheism" if I were to wear my "atheist hat". I imagine that Noah and Adam would be based on actual people as well, but not necessarily think them monotheistic with my "atheist hat" on. Again, it was the phrase "God of Abraham" that seems to be so stressed.

Your point about Pharoah's monotheism not winning out seems to fly in the face of your "monotheism sticks" theory. You seemed to be saying that monotheism is inherently more likely to win out. Did I misunderstand?

And yeah, I don't get this "Jew were a converting people" bit. I think it's more likely that whoever is most powerful, people are most likely to mimick their religion. And if the Jews were the ONLY monotheistic people, there would be a lot of pressure working against them to explain easily the consistent "backsliding".

As to why the Jews would be stubborn against forced attempts at conversion rather than against pressure from polytheistic nations, being persecuted probably served to strengthen their sense of self and stubbornness against being converted. Also, I imagine the pressure of surrounding polytheistic cultures would be more subtle and indirect. It would be more like peer pressure, seducing (that is often how it is described as well) while the inquisition and such was more like a bully, pushing, forcing. I don't imagine these polytheistic cultures did anything so direct. And when they did, (as in the story of Daniel and his friends resisting in Babylon), note the typical Jewish stubbornness.

Human nature. You seduce, you get better results than when you force--especially when the people have a strong sense of identity. When there isn't such a strong sense of unique identity, I imagine it is far easier to convince. (Though other groups resisted similarly, adopting Christianity on the surface, but still embracing their old religions in their daily lives. But there wasn't such a strong force holding them together, so it didn't last.) You still find pretty strong traces of ancient native American customs in Central America in spite of the Christian converting efforts.

It seems that sense of "we are the only ones like this" won out for the Jewish people. The sense of identity was instilled so deeply and so powerfully, strenghtened by scripture and tradition, and intensified by persecution. The Dune series has an interesting concept of them remaining as a group, in secret, not just thousands of years after the earth passed away, but millions. Interesting idea.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Heh, I see your point Kwea, but no, I haven't touched those articles. They seemed fairly neutral to me, and aren't marked with the 'disputed' flag, which on such a sensitive topic seems to indicate they present both sides of the issue.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it would be a serious stretch to call the United Kingdom a “Great Power,” even using the Bible as your only historical source. Little empire that managed to maintain a great deal of independence while sandwiched between Great Powers would be closer. And once we move into the divided kingdom it’s a mess of shifting alliances, tribute, rebelling against tribute, etc. Yes, Jerusalem managed to remain un-sacked for a century or so after the fall of Samaria, either because of divine intervention or because Sennacherib had bigger fish to fry (uprisings in Babylon, for example). But Judah lost a large chunk of land and paid tribute before Assyria turned away. So again, a player in international politics, but not really one of the big guns.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2