posted
Sparked from Lisa's posting of the Bible as proof of something in Rabbit's Abiogenisis thread, and bolstered by some reading and pondering I've been doing, I've got a question for you all.
1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
So first, the reading that directly applies:
quote:Not a single person or event known from the books of Genesis through 2 Samuel is mentioned in a contemporaneous non-biblical text...
We should also observe that the biblical sources for the earlier periods are remarkable unspecific. Although pharaohs of Egypt are described as having had dealings with biblical figures such as Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, none of the pharaohs referred to in the books of Genesis and Exodus is named by the biblical writers, so that we cannot fit them into the well-established chronology of ancient Egypt. Nor do Egyptian sources make any mention of the biblical figures. As a result, scholars have no conclusive answers to such questions as these: When did Abraham live, or did he even exist? When did the Exodus from Egypt take place, if at all?
That is not to say that there may not be some authentic historical memory preserved in the narrative of earlier times, but it has been so refracted by the lenses of various sources that we can say little about what may actually have happened. The farther back we go in the biblical narrative, the more we are in the realm not of history but of myth.
So, I guess, to start: How about Abraham. Who here thinks he actually existed? Who thinks he never existed? And who (like myself), doesn't really know, but also doesn't really care. He's become a more mythical figure than a historical figure, and the myth is well-known and well-told. The story is shared by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, although in different variations. There is something beautiful in that, regardless of the question of his actual existence.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the purely semantic sense, I don't credit the idea that the Abraham of the Bible ever existed at all, by mere dint of being turned into the Abraham of the Bible. Perhaps some specific figure existed who was a basis for the story, though it's unlikely, but even given that, the Biblical story is unlikely enough to dismiss out of hand. So even if there was an Abraham, he wasn't the man described in the Bible, and so the Abraham of the Bible never existed. His narrative was written down a millennium after it is claimed he existed- if he is based on anyone, it is certainly *not* anyone from the period of which he was meant to be a part.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without commenting on the subject of particular beliefs, and knowing that the human population is a maelstrom of competing and incompatible supernatural belief systems that literally change their Eternal Unchanging Truth with every generation, the entire concept at discussion here revolves around the fact that our various psychological biases and susceptibility to indoctrination ensures that #3 is unimportant to a 'true believer.' Once someone is convinced to the level of cognitive dissonance and choice-supportive bias kicking in for sure, the internal mechanisms for justifying a belief to yourself render that critical review is reflexively shut down.
we do it with politics too!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: 1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
Wait....Is this a trap? If not, well then here we go:
1) I believe that most if not all of the prophets mentioned in the Bible actually existed. Names may not be correct or even the same, but I believe that someone actually experienced the things described in the Bible.
2)Its a personal belief. I'm LDS, and I also read the Book of Mormon. It supports the existence of Abraham, Moses, and other prophets mentioned in the Bible. Experts? To a lesser extent. I grew up in a house that had sporadic scripture study. I went to four years of seminary in high school. To be honest though the bulk of my belief and faith in my church was gained in my mission, through experiences I had and the study I performed.
I was told in the scriptures that if I lived my life a certain way, my quality of life would improve. I tested this, and I found that the scriptures were correct. I shared my findings with others and challenged them to do the same, and for many of them they also had an improvement in their quality of life.
3) Not a whole lot. The teachings in the Bible are what is important, not the people that experienced them. Abraham for example showed faith, courage, and sacrifice. Whether a man named Abraham actually existed or not is not as important as the message of the story.
On the same note, I would say that there is person that I would say is very important whether they existed or not, and that is Jesus Christ. Without Him nothing else would matter.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
*muses* Of all the reasons I heard on my mission for doubt, I think the guy who didn't believe that Joseph Smith had ever existed stimied me the most.
Not Mormon. Not Jesus Christ. Not Abraham. He thought the very existence of Joseph Smith was a fairy tale.
quote:1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
1. Most of the ones mentioned, although I have to admit that there I wouldn't be heartbroken if Adam and Eve were metaphorical, and I also think the whole Elijah/Elisha thing sounds mythical to me. Most of the people in the Old Testament I'd be fine with turning out to be metaphorical, although I think the story of Abraham and the next four generations or so is simply too good and rings too true to be made up.
2. Same as Geraine above.
3. Not too much, as long as Jesus Christ lived. I do absolutely love Moroni, so I'd be really sad about him not being real. Moroni, son of Mormon, not Captain Moroni. Captain Moroni sounds kind of mythical to begin with.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure only the people who are not only named but cross-referenced in ancient texts (the Bible doesn't count) actually existed in ancient times. Anyone who wasn't mentioned wasn't really real. So there were really very few people alive a few thousands years ago. Our big global population explosion happened around the same time we started keeping reliable, lasting written records that didn't discredit themselves by mentioning God in any way. Now lots of people exist. Don't believe me? Just open a phone book.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed? 2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else? 3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
1. I think everybody in the past who lived actually existed. But really, somehow I have a complete faith that all of the major folks in the Old Testament, New Testament,and Book of Mormon. As someone else mentioned above, they may not (most likely not) have the names listed in those books, and some (if not many) of the events ascribed to them may not have happened the way they are portrayed. Many of the stories may be combinations of events or people into one, which leads to the mythic quality of so much of it all.
2. I believe this because of what some people would probably call brainwashing. I was taught these things from my babyhood. I have immersed myself in these three books (and others) which tell the stories of these people to the point that they are so much a part of my own story that I can't imagine them not being real.
3. It actually matters a lot to me that these people be real. Though, as I said earlier, the stories as they are told may not be as reality actually was. It matters because, also as I said earlier, their stories are part and parcel of my own story -- they are a part of how I identify who I am, what I stand for, and why I act as I do.
Do I think that the numbers of people listed in the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon are accurate? No.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" It actually matters a lot to me that these people be real."
The first step towards recovery is admission of a problem. I consider this an admission even if you don't. Congratulations.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Who in the past do you believe to have actually existed?
Santa Claus.
2) Why do you believe this? Do you go off of evidence you've seen, or experts telling you so? Or something else?
The explanation of his existence is plausible. All stories come from somewhere, even most fictional characters are based on some experience the author has had. There are also, I believe, contemporary records of his existence.
3) How much does it actually matter whether or not some of these people were real?
It doesn't matter at all, going forward, but it matters very much in determining how we got where we are.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm honestly fine with people who are in Sala's boat and stay that way. If you're honest about what you don't know and why you believe what you do, and are getting something good out of it, then I can't in good conscience recommend abandoning your beliefs unless you had another community/worldview ready to fill the void that would result by its abandoning. (Such alternate communities and worldviews exist, and can be quite satisfying, but switching over to them requires effort and real life companions, and its up to the individual to decide if they have the support and desire to make that transition)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymond Arnold: I have no idea what you mean by "Sala += 1;" but I do appreciate your second comment about my boat and the people who are with me in it! I have no problem with others having alternate worldviews from mine. I see no reason to switch from my particular worldview.
I thought I'd give it a try . . . replying honestly to a thoughtful religious question on this board, even though I knew I probably shouldn't. I've seen how some folks on this board just can't seem to restrain themselves from being rude and berating anyone who has a religious point of view rather than responding to the questions posed. So, Raymond Arnold, thanks for being considerate of my point of view.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sala, thanks for posting. And no, this is not a trap. I'm genuinely curious. Please ignore any smarminess you might encounter.
I (as many here know) am an atheist, and am vary curious as to why other people believe what they do. For me, it seems very unlikely that Adam or Eve or Abraham existed. The fact that they have been focused on by multiple cultures for thousands of years, in my mind, puts them much more in the league with mythical figures.
I admire people who believe these things based on faith or (Sala's words) brainwashing, and can see and admit that it's not a belief that can be rationed and explained to others. I have trouble when people insist it's true because the Bible says so, because that reason simply holds no weight for many people. It's an appeal to a non-universally recognized authority.
Like I said in the other thread, there are some beautiful and powerful stories and ideas, but by no means are they ubiquitous and their historical accuracy is nowhere near certain. If people appeal to the historical accuracy, I think they are wrong and if they can't see why they are fooling themselves. If they appeal to the #3 of my OP, then I'm fine with it.
I am confounded by the anger, or shocked indignation, or recoil, I sometimes encounter when I state that the Bible is not a valid authority to appeal to. For a lot of people, the default is that everything is true, and there are exceptions here and there. For me, the default is that none of it is true; it's a story, not a history book. I need convincing, or a decent argument, or something to make be believe that any single thing in it actually happened.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Michael Coogan: [QUOTE]Not a single person or event known from the books of Genesis through 2 Samuel is mentioned in a contemporaneous non-biblical text...
That's not necessarily the case at all. For example, I think the evidence shows that the Pharaoh of the Oppression (the one just before the guy at the time of the Exodus) was Pepi II of the Egyptian 6th Dynasty. So yes, he's very much mentioned in a contemporaneous non-biblical text. Just as an example.
quote:Originally posted by Michael Coogan: When did Abraham live, or did he even exist? When did the Exodus from Egypt take place, if at all?
Abraham was born 500 years before the Exodus. The Exodus took place 475 years before Solomon became king. Solomon became king 414 years before Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Do the math.
quote:Originally posted by Michael Coogan: That is not to say that there may not be some authentic historical memory preserved in the narrative of earlier times, but it has been so refracted by the lenses of various sources that we can say little about what may actually have happened. The farther back we go in the biblical narrative, the more we are in the realm not of history but of myth.
That's one opinion, I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: So, I guess, to start: How about Abraham. Who here thinks he actually existed? Who thinks he never existed? And who (like myself), doesn't really know, but also doesn't really care. He's become a more mythical figure than a historical figure, and the myth is well-known and well-told.
I agree in part. Yes, I think he existed. But no, we know very little about him. The Bible recounts a handful of moments in his life. For all we know, he had bad breath and something of a temper. We don't actually care about the historical Abraham. We care about the character that's presented to us.
If I wanted to tell the story of a guy from Illinois who wanted to go into politics but was a complete failure, I could use Abraham Lincoln. Just by not mentioning the fact that he later became president. From the standpoint of modern historiography, that would be a distorted portrayal. But the Bible isn't that kind of history. It's intentionally didactic.
But yes, all the people in Genesis were real people. Same with most of the books of the Bible. Job may have been fictional.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your opinions differ greatly from those of biblical scholars. Who should I believe? You, who states disputed facts with unfounded confidence, or the biblical scholars, who actually weigh facts with their plausibility and authenticity, and try to come to conclusions that anyone with a rational mind can agree with?
You are overly confident, and the authority you keep appealing to does not hold the weight you seem to think it does.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am confounded by the anger, or shocked indignation, or recoil, I sometimes encounter when I state that the Bible is not a valid authority to appeal to. For a lot of people, the default is that everything is true, and there are exceptions here and there. For me, the default is that none of it is true; it's a story, not a history book. I need convincing, or a decent argument, or something to make be believe that any single thing in it actually happened.
White Whale, I too am confounded by the anger, shocked indignation, or recoil that you (and I) have experienced. My personal belief/faith/brainwashing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is that the Bible is very fallible. It was written, and rewritten, and retranscribed, and retranslated so many times that, to me, it can't possibly be the infallible Word of God. And yet, despite that, I still think these people existed. To me, their stories have been repeated so many times and in so many places BECAUSE they existed and people picked up on their stories.
I'll try to ignore the snarkiness. I know it's ubiquitious on this board. Thanks for reassuring these questions were not a trap. There've been too many times when it appeared that they were in other threads.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no citations. Lisa, could you please provide them? I'll follow them if you provide them. ETA: Or are you saying the references to the books of the Bible are the references to biblical scholars?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. I think most figures of the Old Testament probably existed, although I'm not sure what to make of Adam and Eve. I am not sure to what degree their stories accurately reflect what really happened to them though.
I also believe in the existence of The White Whale.
2. I believe in them mostly because authorities I tend to trust claim they existed historically, because it fits in with my other beliefs, and because there's not really any good reason to doubt they did.
3. As far as the Old Testament goes, I don't really think their actual existence is that important. I see the OT being more important as lessons about how to live, and about background to the larger story of the Bible, rather than as a historical timeline of events.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I see no citations. Lisa, could you please provide them? I'll follow them if you provide them. ETA: Or are you saying the references to the books of the Bible are the references to biblical scholars?
That's a toughy. I don't know if there's any place that says, in so many words, "Abraham was a real person". Just because the idea that he wasn't probably never even occurred to anyone. You know, since we're descended from him and all.
I could point you to Rashi, or the Rambam. I could point you to the Talmud. But it's all kind of a waste of time, because I'm well aware that you aren't going to accept those sources. But you did ask, so I did answer. Even knowing that you'd spit on the answer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think TWW was more referring in that request to some of your other claims about, for instance, the pharoahs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throwing my two cents in, I don't believe the Biblical characters existed in any meaningful way.
What I mean when I say 'meaningful way' is primarily to do with the supernatural attributes associated with the characters.
An historical Abraham may have existed. But I see no good reason to believe he ever communicated with any sort of deity or emissaries of said deity.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in tautological authority because it is true. Ergo, *insert given holy book based argument here*
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Believing in god responsibly is like doing meth "responsibly."
Of course it is! Now, I realize evidence is something religious people have to have, not you, but still, some would be just delightful:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think that this is a good link that explains Mass Revelation. Its' not the - "The Bible says it's true, so it must be true," argument.
The power of tradition and the veracity of the links in the chain are only powerful because they are rooted in the mass revelation.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same way competing religions are, but I don't think you consider Zeus or Odin real gods, even though they had mass revelation in their time.
You obviously don't follow Allah. Or Xenu.
That argument doesn't even hold weight for you.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think that this is a good link that explains Mass Revelation. Its' not the - "The Bible says it's true, so it must be true," argument.
quote:Let's begin with believability. No other religion sect or cult, from the beginning of time until the present day, has even made the claim that the Torah makes: that more than one person heard God give them their divine mission here on earth.
Wow, that isn't even remotely true.
quote:We the Jewish people make such a claim: Millions heard God speak. How could such a claim ever be accepted if it did not occur?
1. 'Accepted' for a very specific given definition of 'accepted.' Two groups fall into accepting it. One a subset of a fractionally small religion, no more than 8-9 million people. The rest of the people who believe it are not part of the jewish religion at all and believe things which judaism explicitly denies anyway.
2. - go back in time to a primitive pre-mass-media era - have a religious authority claim that a prior generation had experienced such a mass revelation - maintain this claim in holy writ - teach it to future generations of the religion in question
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The same way competing religions are, but I don't think you consider Zeus or Odin real gods, even though they had mass revelation in their time.
You obviously don't follow Allah. Or Xenu.
That argument doesn't even hold weight for you.
MC, do you mind educating me on the Zeus and Odin mass revelations?
As for Allah - the burden is on Islam and Christianity to explain why Judaism is no longer correct, not on Jews to explain why they don't follow Allah, as again, both religions rely on the Jewish mass revelation.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does one responsibly base their life choices on the voices in their head, and dictate others' lives based on same?
It is only acceptable when it is based on the regional creation myth of choice.
OK, so first of all, you don't actually have any evidence, just a pithy question. Good to know.
Now, to respond to your question: of the 'voices in their head' tell them to do good, responsible things, and they do them, what's the difference? That's the first objection to a profoundly silly idea that religion cannot possibly be believed in responsibly, likening it to crystal meth. The second objection is that, obviously, you don't actually know the things they do really come from 'voices in their head' or God. You're guessing. Should the fact that you don't know compel you to belief? Of course not. Should your not knowing somehow transition into 'they're crazy and stupid'? Also no, of course not.
As for dictating others' lives, *shrug*. Give atheists a good, lengthy track record, and then we'll see whether it can be believed, or rather disbelieved, responsibly. Though thus far atheism does not seem to be an invincible shield against bad behavior, anymore than religion is a guarantee of good.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth: Zeus fathered a number of half-god children, Yhwh only one. Odin visited Midguard in the flesh and personally interacted with people on many occassions.
Your insistence that this Mass Revelation is somehow solid evidence is just cherry picking what your religion wants to claim as important. If you say that many god-children make a religion more true, or that many personal sightings of the God make it more true, then you need to follow another religion.
I'm pretty sure that KoM has mentioned Mass Revelation by the Norse Gods, and there have been mass revelation of UFOs and Virgin Mary in windows and statues.
I guess you have to admit the OT is false now, since it claimed that any other Mass Revelations would nullify it
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp - Both Islam and Christianity rely on the Jewish Mass revelation. 2 Billion people.
As for your second point, time travel or God. Which is more probable to you?
ta-da!
Time travel is actually consistent mathamatically and is generally accepted as theoretically possibly if albeit something close to a physical practical impossibility at this juncture.
IP: Logged |
posted
You need to think through the Mass Revelation argument before you are so dismissive.
The Mass Revelation is only a potent argument if the probability of alternative explanations is lower than simply believing in truth behind the mass revelation. The Bible discusses a mass revelation of the type where the people had God speak to them "face to face" so to speak. There was thunder, lightning, fire, smoke, and the actual experience of prophecy by the populace.
Now, you take the book that describes that and you present it to a nation and say - btw, all that stuff? That happened to your parents. So the issue with the acceptance of that book is that anyone who reads that will deny it because if it happened to their parents, they would have known. If you are familiar with the Bible, its presentation as a whole to another people would also seem implausible.
Think about what the Bible says in it, and think about the plausibility of a group of ppl accepting it. It is fundamentally different if I try to convince you that God is talking to me than if I try to convince you that God spoke to you, remember?
The other examples that you mentioned are folk tales that do not fit into "Mass Revelation" for the simple reason that there are alternative explanations for why people believed. Saying that someone was Odin in the flesh? Half-God children? That's not Sinai. Not even close. And the "mass" part is not even there either.
MC - I'll continue to discuss this respectfully. But please don't be snide. This is not a game to me, if you can respect me and discuss, let's do it. No more ta-das, no more "that was easys" - I'm a real person at the computer, please treat me like one.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samp - Both Islam and Christianity rely on the Jewish Mass revelation. 2 Billion people.
Re-read my post.
quote:Two groups fall into accepting it. One a subset of a fractionally small religion, no more than 8-9 million people. The rest of the people who believe it are not part of the jewish religion at all and believe things which judaism explicitly denies anyway.
Group one: practicing jews Group two: christians & muslims, etc.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But really, somehow I have a complete faith that all of the major folks in the Old Testament, New Testament,and Book of Mormon. As someone else mentioned above, they may not (most likely not) have the names listed in those books, and some (if not many) of the events ascribed to them may not have happened the way they are portrayed. Many of the stories may be combinations of events or people into one, which leads to the mythic quality of so much of it all. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
