Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 21:19
Quote:
Originally posted by fett Remember how it bashed everyone in sight, then was confused that they shot it through the throat?
Jigga please, quit flattering yourself. There's nothing to "bash" except for a bunch of non sequiturs and bad implied logic.
Quote:
ANYWAY:
grip is right - faith is an entirely different issue and I expect people to think it's crazy because it absolutely is. My issue is with historians and those who make sweeping statements about contradictions and myths when they don't know what they're talking about. It's embarassing when grown-ups regurgitate something they learned in 10th grade humanities class and haven't thought about it any further. Then they get jobs at universities. Bah!
Why are you blabbering about this?
What are you trying to prove?
You're acting like this is some sort of either/or question. Anybody with half a brain will admit that there is some useful shit in the bible, and that even if it's not 100% correct, it can provide a decent source with respect to historical and archeological study, which is an entirely separate issue from the loopy bullshit.
Fine, conceded.... My response: "Yeah, and? What's the big fuckin' deal?"
<u>Nobody</u> here is seriously suggesting otherwise... which is why, I'll say it again, you're just building an irelevant strawman. You're making shit up. "Oh but Historians used to say it's wrong...." and "Professor Nerfflekerffle in East Bumfuck, Arkansas said it's useless..." Again, nobody fucking cares. You're making a <i>useless</i> point.
Consider <i>your</i> throat... slit.
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 21:24
Quote:
You're acting like this is some sort of either/or question. Anybody with half a brain will admit that there is some useful shit in the bible, and that even if it's not 100% correct, it can provide a decent source with respect to historical and archeological study, which is an entirely separate issue from the loopy bullshit.
The point is that this does not play out in experience. As i mentioned, i had several history teachers that would not take the Bible as a credible source... i.e. one couldn't reference it by itself, even though only purely historical events would be used. You can imagine what it is like in the historical scholar community at large.
Quote:
Nobody here is seriously suggesting otherwise
The whole discussion came up because some asked about the historical accuracy of the Bible. Forgive us for digressing a bit perhaps, but it IS still relevant.
Quote:
Again, nobody fucking cares
Obviously a few people here do, so why do you bother? Carry on and let us morons suffer in peace.
Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 21:28
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip Historians and archeologists have made important discoveries that the Bible already made reference to... however, they refused to even consider the historical accuracies until some other source pointed it out. How is that progress?
If they <i>refused</i> to consider them, why were they doing the research which eventually led to the discoveries?
HELLLOOOOOOO, MCFLYYY?
screech on 29/1/2004 at 21:28
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip It's faith that saves, not historical facts, and that faith comes from God, not man.
Erm. This is one of the areas I have a big problem with. Faith (sanctity) comes from God, and man is blank vessel that can agree to accept it or worse, a taint who normally fucks it up. Faith comes from God, but lack of it is man's weakness.
If anything, faith in God can be blamed for gross cruelty along with any kindness.
For all of Jesus' injunctions against pro-forma religiousity, I think very few Christians can argue they are any farther from "figuring out the limits" of religious injunctions than the average Pharsi was. All this stuff about "following the word of God" and argumentation over what that is, is at it's essence, the same behavior.
Buddha fought the same issues within his Hindu culture. To be fair GBM, Gotama was similiarly divinified, although I feel it was his followers that did it.
Quote:
It's embarassing when grown-ups regurgitate something they learned in 10th grade humanities class and haven't thought about it any further. Then they get jobs at universities. Bah!
I hope that feeling also includes those who base all their faith on what they learned in Bible school. ;)
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 21:35
RBJ...
Quote:
they refused to even consider the historical accuracies until some other source pointed it out.
doesn't the quote you referenced answer your question? Other sources made reference to historical sites that the Bible had mentioned for centuries, even more than a millenium. However, historians would not consider investigating them solely from the Biblical references, rather, they wanted another source to say the same thing.
Quote:
Faith comes from God, but lack of it is man's weakness.
i agree... it's a tough pill to swallow. That's why i pointed out that you won't believe it unless God has moved in your heart. When i became a Christian, i didn't believe it either at first, and there are quite a few Christians who will claim that it is up to man to choose God, not vice versa. It's the whole "we love God because God first loved us" idea.
Quote:
If anything, faith in God can be blamed for gross cruelty along with any kindness.
Now that's a different topic altogether, i.e. the Crusades, which i would say were done in the name of Christ but were altogether not Christian movements. They were actually the opposite.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/1/2004 at 21:36
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip He doesn't. There is such a thing as righteous anger, it's just that none of us are righteous. Have you ever felt anger without some form of hatred in your heart?
Yes I can say I definitely have felt anger without some form of hatred unless you're counting some kind of hatred of an abstraction such as inconsistent thinking or crappy circumstances or something.
In which case I'm stuck because I don't understand how you can have anger without disliking <i>something</i>.
I'm gonna cry if the answer is "God's anger is unfathomable and indescribable and thus has no need for a source of discontent". 'Cuz that's the kind of thing that makes me angry.
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip doesn't the quote you referenced answer your question? Other sources made reference to historical sites that the Bible had mentioned for centuries, even more than a millenium. However, historians would not consider investigating them solely from the Biblical references, rather, they wanted another source to say the same thing.
Maybe I'm missing your point but that seems like a very sound approach to me.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 21:41
Quote:
I hope that feeling also includes those who base all their faith on what they learned in Bible school.
Heh - you have no idea. I have, if possible, even more contempt for ignorant 'Christians' who believe it 'because the Bible said so'!
If it's true, then I should be willing to live/die for it. If I don't care to find out for myself about it, why waste another hour of my time sitting in church? That's the worst kind of apathy and waste of a life.
screech on 29/1/2004 at 21:44
grip, how do you know that what you feel comes from something outside yourself? Besides, it's not _your_ faith if it's just God sitting in there making feel that way. You only reduce yourself to a empty vessel.
Historians perhaps avoided the Bible because you need to be able to distinguish facts from myth or spirituality.
Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 21:45
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip doesn't the quote you referenced answer your question? Other sources made reference to historical sites that the Bible had mentioned for centuries, even more than a millenium. However, historians would not consider investigating them solely from the Biblical references, rather, they wanted another source to say the same thing.
You ain't that bright, are you? This is exactly why this whole thing is going in circles...
"They wanted something else to say the same thing."
Well, fucking duhh!
It's called independent verification, rigor, proof, call it whatever the hell you will.
This is why when you claim to agree that "Archeology isn't just about faith" that you so obviously don't fucking get it. Quit whining that your precious bible is held to the same standard of proof as other historical sources (except for by these mythical history teachers of yours), and accept the fact that until we can fact check the whole fucking thing, that us thinking people are going to assume that many of the references are just as mythical as the talking snakes and people turning to commemorative God's Wrath™ salt and pepper shaker sets.
*Zaccheus* on 29/1/2004 at 21:51
Yes please, forget everything you have learned in sunday school, then read Luke followed by John and Acts. Those three books in the bible are a nice little introduction to christianity, and are conveniently placed in sequential order!
:)
Rug Burn Junky - you do have a point there. There's no reason for historians to believe that town X existed if it is only mentioned in a story they believe to be a silly myth. But I think that, by now, there are enough instances of biblical names having historical roots, that perhaps they should start taking it a bit more seriously.
