quote: My scriptures say that an appeal to Christ will immediately begin to bring about relief from guilt. Atheists wouldn't experience that, having no reason to appeal to Christ. I have - and I've tried it both ways. I've let guilt fester, I've tried other ways to make it disappear, and done other things in this area borne of stubborn pride. Only an appeal to Christ works and brings peace.
Hm. I'm reasonably sure I've found other workable alternatives. Which ones did you try before resorting to Christ?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence.
I refuse to take into account contradictory evidence. All those Moslems, Satanists, Aesirtru, and whatnot make exactly the same claim for their particular fairy tale. They all seem very sincere. But all that subjective evidence cancels out, leaving nothing.
You realize, don't you, that there's no validity to that argument. Competing and conflicting claims can mean three things:
One is right
The other is right
Both are wrong
Why do you think the third option has some sort of special status?
You're lazy, O King. Faced with competing and conflicting claims, you can look into them and really compare them to see if one has a stronger claim than the others. After that, you can make declarative statements about your results.
Alternatively, you can say, "It's not worth my time, so I'm not going to bother." And then just stay away from the argument.
But you want to be able to make the declarative statements without bothering yourself to actually look at the competing claims. That's lazy.
I repeat: a guy in a cave and a dozen bereaved friends don't have a claim that compares to a couple million people all seeing and hearing the same thing at the same time.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Out of curiousity, starLisa: which part do you disagree with? I'm not trying to start an argument - it just wasn't clear from what you wrote.
It was this:
quote:if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me
Correlation isn't causation. If you do something you believe in, in a community of people who share those beliefs, it's going to probably make you and the people around you happy. So long as you aren't hurting anyone. That's independent of the beliefs in question.
If you were a Wiccan, in a community of Wiccans, then keeping the Wiccan Rede would make you and the people around you happy just the same. Using the word "evidence" -- even "evidence for me" -- is a misuse of language.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Here's an example. My scriptures say that an appeal to Christ will immediately begin to bring about relief from guilt. Atheists wouldn't experience that, having no reason to appeal to Christ.
I've heard of Christian Scientists. This is the first time I've heard of Christian Psychologists.
If you're feeling guilty, then you need to look at where the guilt is coming from. If it's coming from something that you're doing which isn't right, well... there's an obvious solution there.
A guy walks into a doctor's office and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor tells him, "So, nu? Don't do that!"
In other words, if the guilt is coming from something you're doing wrong, stop doing it. If it's coming from anything else, like being guilty that you have all four working limbs when there are others who don't, you simply need a therapist. Or a reality check.
Also, it isn't just atheists who have no reason to appeal to your deity. Do try and remember that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If you were a Wiccan, in a community of Wiccans, then keeping the Wiccan Rede would make you and the people around you happy just the same. Using the word "evidence" -- even "evidence for me" -- is a misuse of language.
Out of curiosity, do you reject the idea of subjective evidence in general?
"Correlation isn't causation" applies to deductive logic only. We're talking about inductive logic, where if you have enough different correlations, you're justified in assuming causation.
You're in danger of making the same mistake as KoM in this regard. While I have to put forth my evidence one point at a time and he has the opportunity to dismiss each in turn, I didn't come to my conclusion serially. I take the evidence as a whole, and in that form, it's very convincing to me.
Going back to the curve fitting analogy, it's like this: you have an intial hypothesis that the points are uncorrelated. For each point, rather than considering them as a whole, you evaluate each independently and dismiss them all because you can show that any of them could have been produced randomly. Well, duh. Each independent point can be produced by a uniformly random process.
You have to consider "enough" points to even begin to make a judgment between noise and data, "enough" is defined subjectively, and there's no way to prove that one person's "enough" isn't. "Enough = 0" - each point independently, which is KoM's stance with regards to religion - isn't provably bad, but it's provably very limiting. With "enough = 0," it's simply impossible to make any generalizations (which is what fitting a curve is) except "this is random."
KoM obviously doesn't always do this, because he's capable of generalization. (Otherwise, he'd be a mindless vegetable.) People who use "enough = 0" don't want to find a generalization.
Personally, I believe that the accuracy of the predictions of the scriptures, my peace with God, the happiness I claim from keeping the commandments, enochville's material evidences, and the things I sometimes just know (always accompanied by a feeling I associate with the Spirit of God) which turn out to be extremely useful, all combine to make a very convincing argument - for me.
---
I'm not going to quote the "guilt" part. While I appreciate your attempt to help me psychologically, I realize that it was a miscommunication.
I've just realized that people in my faith - and probably most Christians - pile more connotation into the word "guilt" than most people. We mean the "guilt" that most people do - the shame of conscience which convinces you that you were wrong and that you need to change - and also a loss that's sort of independent from that. That basic guilt of conscience is supposed to fade with time, and if someone's made restitution and changed, and it's still an incessant, emotionally debilitating presence, then yes, that person needs a therapist.
The rest of it, which we also often call "guilt," is a loss of a sense of peace with God. For me, accepting Christ brought a sense of peace into my life that I didn't have before. Keeping the commandments of God keeps it around, and I feel it more strongly when I pray or read the scriptures. Doing something wrong - as well as making me feel guilt of conscience - drives it away.
It's that that doesn't return without an appeal to Christ. What I've tried is the same kinds of things I do to alleviate guilt of conscience, and that never works.
I can't really describe it better than that. The feeling of peace with God is experientially defined.
quote:Also, it isn't just atheists who have no reason to appeal to your deity. Do try and remember that.
I didn't say "my God," I said "God." People who believe in a god of some kind almost invariably appeal to it somehow. Otherwise, what would be the point?
Anyway, I apologize for any offense.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If you were a Wiccan, in a community of Wiccans, then keeping the Wiccan Rede would make you and the people around you happy just the same. Using the word "evidence" -- even "evidence for me" -- is a misuse of language.
Out of curiosity, do you reject the idea of subjective evidence in general?
Would you define that for me, please? I can't answer your question unless I know what you mean by subjective evidence. If you mean emotional responses that can easily be caused by things that a person experiencing them isn't aware of, then yes, I reject it.
I had a friend who was into Wicca. She's also a Ph.D. in Physics or some such. I asked her, "How can you be so sure that the magick you say you've experienced is real, and not just something taking place in your head? Her response was: "Why would that matter?"
See, for her, the effect was the important thing. She wasn't making objective claims on the basis of her subjective feelings. Only subjective claims, which is entirely legitimate. She labeled what she experienced as "magick", so fine.
You're making objective claims on the basis of subjective feelings. But you must realize that feelings can come from any number of things.
Look... let me give you an example. I'm an Orthodox Jew. I'm also a lesbian. As you might surmise, this doesn't exactly grease the social wheels for me in the Orthodox Jewish community.
Now... I'm firmly convinced that I'm not doing anything against Jewish law. I'm good with God. I'm not so good with the community. So when I go into a synagogue and feel people staring holes into my back, I feel uncomfortable. One might say that if walking into a synagogue makes me feel anxious and uncomfortable, maybe there's something wrong with Orthodox Judaism. Maybe I'm feeling something spiritual in that synagogue that my soul recognizes as icky.
But that's not the case. And I happen to be aware of what it is that's causing me discomfort. But take someone 25 years younger than me, who is an Orthodox Jewish high school student and a lesbian, but hasn't really figured out what she's feeling yet. She might get the same nervous feelings going into the synagogue and not realize what's causing them.
The same thing is true for you. You say that accepting your deity made you start to feel less guilty. Hasn't it occurred to you that this reaction is inevitably what will happen if you are convinced that accepting your deity is the right thing to do? Regardless of the truth or falsity of the proposition?
Emotions are a automatic reaction which works off of our values. To the extent that we attain or keep our values, we are happy. To the extent that we lose or faily to gain our values, we are unhappy.
If you think that being wealthy makes you bad (you know, camels, needles, eyes, etc), then being wealthy is going to make you feel guilty. You aren't feeling guilty because of the money, but because you have internalized a set of values which considers poverty praiseworthy and wealth... not so much.
Most people never really look at their values. They just internalize them unconsciously from their environment. And that means that they're going to have emotional reactions that they can't account for rationally. The most common response to that is to look for any explanation, rational or not.
I'm convinced that God exists. I'm convinced that He gave us His Torah and that He wants us to live according to it. But have I ever had some sort of spiritual vision of Him? Not that I'm aware of.
And it's not as though I'm closed-minded to the very idea. I mentioned that Wiccan friend of mine. I have actually experienced "magick". One time, but that was enough. It's not an experience that I'd like to repeat. Nor can I prove to anyone (myself included) that it wasn't some kind of illusion or delusion.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: "Correlation isn't causation" applies to deductive logic only. We're talking about inductive logic, where if you have enough different correlations, you're justified in assuming causation.
Not necessarily. The number of correlations isn't important if each one is attributable to other things. Lots times zero is still zero, right?
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: You're in danger of making the same mistake as KoM in this regard.
<sigh> I can't win for losing. I'm tempted to just say "a pox on both your houses" and be done with it.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: While I have to put forth my evidence one point at a time and he has the opportunity to dismiss each in turn, I didn't come to my conclusion serially. I take the evidence as a whole, and in that form, it's very convincing to me.
I have the same problem with Mr. King. He revels in it, too.
Though I'm not sure what you can mean by not coming to your conclusion serially. If it was a lot of different correlations, it sounds like you did come to the conclusion serially.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Going back to the curve fitting analogy, it's like this: you have an intial hypothesis that the points are uncorrelated. For each point, rather than considering them as a whole, you evaluate each independently and dismiss them all because you can show that any of them could have been produced randomly. Well, duh. Each independent point can be produced by a uniformly random process.
You have to consider "enough" points to even begin to make a judgment between noise and data, "enough" is defined subjectively, and there's no way to prove that one person's "enough" isn't. "Enough = 0" - each point independently, which is KoM's stance with regards to religion - isn't provably bad, but it's provably very limiting. With "enough = 0," it's simply impossible to make any generalizations (which is what fitting a curve is) except "this is random."
KoM obviously doesn't always do this, because he's capable of generalization. (Otherwise, he'd be a mindless vegetable.)
Heh.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: People who use "enough = 0" don't want to find a generalization.
On the other hand, human beings are quite capable of looking at the constellation Cygnus and honestly claiming to see a swan there. That's induction, but I'd claim that it's delusional. I can see how Ursa Major could look like a dipper, but a bear? Pull the other one.
That's the problem here, I think. You claim that you have a lot of data points. I think you're taking the same one or two data points and just repeating them a lot. Heck, you couldn't even be a Christian if you were sufficiently well versed in Judaism to understand Christianity's inherent flaws.
Listen, the night before last, Locke and Sayyid (from the show Lost were in my dream. Honestly. Locke was on my side of whatever was happening, and Sayyid definitely was not. Which is kind of funny, because when I'm awake, I'd much rather have Sayyid watching my back than Locke.
Is it strange that I dreamt two characters from a show I like a lot? Okay, maybe it's a little strange that I didn't dream about Kate, but never mind that. The thing is, my environment is full of TV shows. If I were to dream about Santa Claus, well, 'tis the season, and all. It doesn't imply anything real.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Personally, I believe that the accuracy of the predictions of the scriptures,
Uh... yeah. Like the part about a patrilineal descendent of David becoming king and ushering in an era of peace? Whereas you don't have a patrilineal descendent of David, by your own claims, and being called a king by some occupying government doesn't make you one, and I must have missed that era of peace. And then there's the parable about the tree and how bad things can't come from a good tree, which combined with the horrendous history of Christendom seems like a self-imposed verdict.
I hear this "prophecies fulfilled" thing from Christians all the time, and hardly any of them have a glimmer about what the prophecies in question were really saying. Sorry, but it's irksome.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: my peace with God, the happiness I claim from keeping the commandments,
Don't get me started on those commandments. But like I said before, happiness doesn't come from anything objective. You'd be just as happy keeping the real commandments if you were an Orthodox Jew. It's a matter of your values.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: The rest of it, which we also often call "guilt," is a loss of a sense of peace with God. For me, accepting Christ brought a sense of peace into my life that I didn't have before. Keeping the commandments of God keeps it around, and I feel it more strongly when I pray or read the scriptures. Doing something wrong - as well as making me feel guilt of conscience - drives it away.
Well, it would, wouldn't it? You must see that it's going to do that completely independent of whether your religious beliefs are true or not.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: It's that that doesn't return without an appeal to Christ. What I've tried is the same kinds of things I do to alleviate guilt of conscience, and that never works.
That's because you're in an environment where the Christian ethos is taken as a given. KoM is right about that. It's a matter of indoctrination. You feel good when you do what you think is right. And you think this stuff is right because you're soaking in it (Palmolive reference, dating myself again).
You may not notice it, any more than the average person notices air, or any more than a fish notices the water he swims in, but I assure you that it's there. Heck, I grew up in the US, and I get warm fuzzies from the Christmas carols every year. It doesn't mean that it's not annoying to me. But it's the water I was born swimming in, and it feels nice to me despite my knowing better.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what you're actually saying is, if nobody had told you about Jesus, you woulld not have this additional guilt that requires little OCD-ish rituals to still? What an amazingly good argument for your faith.
Lisa, I think I mentioned this already, but there are not millions of people claiming to have witnessed Moses smash the Golden Calf, or whatever event you refer to; there is one man, the author of the Pentateuch, claiming millions of witnesses. And, incidentally, lying through his teeth in an extremely obvious manner. Come now; the population of Memphis, at the time, might have been as much as twenty thousand. Even a single million, marching through the Sinai desert? Ridiculous.
By the way, the ID thread has been a bit derailed, but I would appreciate your thoughts on my last post directed to you. I am really quite interested in your thought process there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So what you're actually saying is, if nobody had told you about Jesus, you woulld not have this additional guilt that requires little OCD-ish rituals to still? What an amazingly good argument for your faith.
First, you (probably understandably) misunderstand what I mean by guilt. I explained it a few posts back. If nobody had told me about Jesus, I wouldn't have this extra peace of soul - which, besides making me feel nice and stuff, helps me become a better person (in ways that, were I to describe it, would detract from the current discussion). When I do something wrong, I lose it. It's something extra, and the extra something is good.
You're presupposing that the something extra is extra guilt. That's the wrong way to look at it. I suppose you could claim that the first derivative is identical, and it might be - but you're missing a positive constant.
"OCD-ish" is a gross misrepresentation. I get on my knees and ask for forgiveness, using regular English words. Though it's a cute thing to think about theists, we're not all flagellants.
Also, I'm saying that this prediction the scriptures make about peace of soul, sin and repentance, given the other evidence, is good evidence. You can't isolate them from each other.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, no. Each piece of evidence has to be able to stand on its own; otherwise you are building a house of rotten planks.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Each premise has to be true in order for the conclusion to be true. However, you cannot ignore a premise which has been stated and then claim that the conclusion must be false, you must instead evaluate the premises.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, and I have evaluated each piece of evidence presented. However, as I think comrade trousers pointed out, this is not deductive but rather inductive logic. Now, he is correct in claiming that many small pieces do add up; but only if each small piece is reliable in the first place! You cannot evaluate them as a whole; there is no emergent truth.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lisa, I think I mentioned this already, but there are not millions of people claiming to have witnessed Moses smash the Golden Calf, or whatever event you refer to; there is one man, the author of the Pentateuch, claiming millions of witnesses.
Yeah, and you were wrong before, too. And... this is kind of interesting... if you claim it again, you'll be wrong yet again. You might notice a pattern here.
At some point, all the Jews became convinced that we'd always known the Torah to have been something that we handed down from teacher to student, parent to child, etc. That's a lot of people. A lot of very stubborn people.
You'd certainly have records of the fight. Hell, even in Egypt, where things were autocratic to an amazing degree, they weren't able to completely wipe out the memory of Akhnaton. There's a limit to what can plausably be seen as having been covered up. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, in which case no limits apply anyway.
You're looking at today, when Jewish sectarians are prevalent. But even the sectarians of 2000 years ago (the last time it was this bad) all agreed that the Torah had been given by God to Israel at Sinai.
No reasonable mechanism can account for such a universal belief. Even the Samaritans, who were vicious enemies of the Jews around the time of Ezra (who some claim to have "redacted" the Torah), have almost exactly the same Torah (the written part, anyway), which they also remember as having been given to Israel at Sinai.
You can't just say: "Well, it happened gradually", because you'd have a record of that.
Can I "prove" that God gave us the Torah? Nah. But assuming the converse leads you into circumstances that are virtually impossible to explain. That'll do for me.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And, incidentally, lying through his teeth in an extremely obvious manner. Come now; the population of Memphis, at the time, might have been as much as twenty thousand. Even a single million, marching through the Sinai desert? Ridiculous.
Silly man. So you reject the possibility of miracles, and then point out that (barring miracles), there's no way a couple of million Israelites could have spent 40 years trekking through the Sinai desert. To which I can only say: duh. Circular reasoning is somewhat lacking in impressiveness.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: By the way, the ID thread has been a bit derailed, but I would appreciate your thoughts on my last post directed to you. I am really quite interested in your thought process there.
My knowledge of biology as a field is pretty much on the level of your knowledge of Judaism, I'd guess. I'm no expert myself. All I can do is rely on sources that seem reasonable to me, and make what logical arguments I can. For my part, I'd like you to take a look at the material Hogan included in his book. While he's not an expert either, he's brought a lot of sources together, and maybe some of what he wrote will answer some questions for you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are being evasive. I am not an expert in biology either; but come on, I'm not asking difficult questions. All I want to know is what you require for speciation to have occurred, in addition to the child being unable to breed with the parent. I'm perfectly happy to have you quote from some source; but if you cannot give some kind of rationale, then I request that you admit speciation has, in fact, been observed.
As for Hogan : As I said, I'm no expert on biology. But I am an expert on physics, and Hogan gets it just plain wrong. I don't see why he should be any more reliable for biology. And for that matter, this bit here :
quote:No mutation that added information to a genome has ever been observed to occur, either naturally or in the laboratory.
is mere misdirection : Where does he define 'information'? If he means Shannon information, which is the usual sense of the word, then he's just plain lying, because hundreds of such mutations have been observed. If he means something else, he should make it clear. And, I might add, he clearly isn't aware of the mutation that allows some bacteria to eat plastic. (Polystyrene? Nylon? One of the synthetics, anyway.) An ability that they didn't have before, expressed by a mutation creating a new protein - added information if ever there was any.
OK, so I looked at your book; now why don't you answer my question? Or if you do insist on referring the amtter to 'experts', then I suggest that you do so all the way, and let the biologists decide. Oops - they already have, and it's evolution all the way. You can't have it both ways.
quote:At some point, all the Jews became convinced that we'd always known the Torah to have been something that we handed down from teacher to student, parent to child, etc. That's a lot of people. A lot of very stubborn people.
A lot of very stubborn, almost completely illiterate people. Come now : The reason Akhnaton couldn't be removed entirely was because there was a relatively large literate class, a lot of papyrus, and that wonderful desert sand for maintaining the scrolls. A bunch of nomads, carrying only such literature as could fit in their heads? Two generations, and you could convince them they'd always believed in Santa Claus. Moreover, I don't think you have a real sense of the time between the events described in Exodus, and the time when the Israelites were a city-dwelling people with a written history. The difference between 1020 BC (reign of Saul) and 1400 BC (approximate Exodus) would take us back to a time well before the founding of the US. How many people, today, in a highly literate society that values education, really know very much about the War of Independence? Much less the Thirty Years' War, which is a much closer analogy to the time involved.
Another point : If there were even two million Israelites at Exodus, how the devil did they manage to get their asses kicked to the point that Sennacherib could besiege Jerusalem? Two million people should be something like three hundred thousand fighting men; that's about the size of the Roman army at the height of the Principate. Come now, this is ridiculous.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, in spite of my earlier words, I've read up to chapter four of the book. It's mainly the good old 'lack of transitionals' argument, with plenty of references to 'trade secrets' and very little naming of names. A quick trip to TalkOrigins would have saved you a lot of trouble; I quote pretty much at random :
quote:The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count. Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches. Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though. Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
Plenty of transitionals in the literature; all you have to do is look.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of very stubborn, almost completely illiterate people
There are plenty of primitive peoples who have passed down some very accurate oral history. However, regardless of the illiteracy of the general population, the religious leaders were highly literate men who kept records.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At some point, all the Jews became convinced that we'd always known the Torah to have been something that we handed down from teacher to student, parent to child, etc. That's a lot of people. A lot of very stubborn people.
A lot of very stubborn, almost completely illiterate people.
<laugh> And you base that on what? A lack of inscriptions? Most inscriptions were on stelae, which were explicitly forbidden in the Torah. And we did write on parchment, which has a poor shelf life.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Come now : The reason Akhnaton couldn't be removed entirely was because there was a relatively large literate class, a lot of papyrus, and that wonderful desert sand for maintaining the scrolls.
<blink> What scrolls? Have scrolls been found that refer to Akhnaton? Wow... that sounds like a pretty major discovery. Mind giving me a link?
Or do you mean clay tablets?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A bunch of nomads, carrying only such literature as could fit in their heads?
Again, based on what?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Two generations, and you could convince them they'd always believed in Santa Claus. Moreover, I don't think you have a real sense of the time between the events described in Exodus, and the time when the Israelites were a city-dwelling people with a written history.
Heh. I don't have a real sense of the time? You're funny.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The difference between 1020 BC (reign of Saul) and 1400 BC (approximate Exodus) would take us back to a time well before the founding of the US. How many people, today, in a highly literate society that values education, really know very much about the War of Independence?
Our society was a tad more literate than the US is, O King.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Much less the Thirty Years' War, which is a much closer analogy to the time involved.
Another point : If there were even two million Israelites at Exodus, how the devil did they manage to get their asses kicked to the point that Sennacherib could besiege Jerusalem? Two million people should be something like three hundred thousand fighting men; that's about the size of the Roman army at the height of the Principate. Come now, this is ridiculous.
I have to agree. Given your comment about my not grasping time spans, I just think it's cute that you managed to bring Sennecherib (c.700 BCE) into it.
Israel and Judah had split about two and a half centuries before that. The first couple of generations after the split were filled with vicious and devastating civil wars between the two kingdoms, and Egyptian invasions. This slammed them sufficiently that they needed to team up to fight against the Moabites.
Then, about 50 years before Sennecherib hit the scene, the Assyrians began to conquer the known world. They attacked both kingdoms (but mostly the northern one) again and again. They conquered it in pieces over the years and deported the inhabitants to the north, populating their territory with conquered people from the north.
Sennecherib's father, Sargon II, completed the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel, and probably took most of Judah as well. There are inscriptions showing their conquest of Lachish, which, after Jerusalem, was the biggest city in Judah.
So by the time Sennecherib came by, just about all that was left was Jerusalem. No millions of people. Not any more.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on, if the nomadic Jews had a literate class, then they were assuredly unique. And I stand by my point about the two million : Such a people would have been invincible; I don't care how many civil wars they had. The most deadly civil war in recorded history, the Thirty Years', which also had intervention by outside forces and was fought in extremely nasty ways - 'Magdeburg quarter, meaning 'kill every last one', is still an expression in Germany - killed perhaps as much as a fourth of Germany's population. Taking my earlier estimate of 300k fighting men, that gives us 225k remaining. Dividing by two for two kingdoms, we get about 100k. That is an enormous, mind-bogglingly huge army. If the Assyrians had defeated any such people, you may rest assured they would have bragged about it. (And yes, they did; to the tune of 'oh, and by the way, the Israelites are now paying tribute. Go us.' Not exactly what you'd do if you had just defeated the largest army the world had ever seen. I mean, we're talking about some hill bandits destroying an army that is a goodly fraction of the modern US armed forces, here.)
quote:Our society was a tad more literate than the US is, O King.
You are seriously claiming literacy greater than 95%, several hundred years before Christ? As you are so fond of saying, based on what?
I still await your response on the speciation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
