Simple question?
Thread Rating:
January 14th, 2016 at 6:41:54 AM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
I hear the Odyssey is not 100% accurate, either :) Seriously. Every last tribe with more than a handful of people in it has made up myths, and many have been preserve din one form or another ever since writing was developed (or invented by the one true god Thoth, it's a possibility). Some may be based on actual events, but even these are vastly exaggerated and distorted in various ways. No one expects to discover the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, the tales of Gilgamesh, the various stories of Osiris, Isis, Horus and Seth, etc. to be truthful or historically accurate. Why would the myths set down on the Bible be any different? The Maya set down myths in books, too, in the Popol Vuh. Aside from being very different in form from Western mythology (pregnancies caused by spit, men turned into monkeys, people growing on trees, etc.), they are quite obviously myths. So are the Biblical myths. BTW, since the Iliad concerns a war between Troy and a "Greek" coalition largely led by Sparta, why is it called "The Iliad"? SPOILER ALERT: Because the Greek name for Troy is "Ilium." Troy derives from the Latin name "Troia," possibly derived from the Hittite "Truwisa." Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
January 14th, 2016 at 6:45:52 AM permalink | |
Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 239 Posts: 6095 |
You're a good mench Padre. Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |
January 14th, 2016 at 11:02:44 AM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25013 |
This has huge implications. The Jews spent decades trying to prove the stories in Exodus were true, they had a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Now that it's a proven myth, what does this say about the rest of the Bible? You can't take a word of the OT or NT at face value, some or all of it is myth also. You have to assume it's all made up stories and go from there, that's how this kind of thing works. I'm already there.. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
January 15th, 2016 at 12:56:40 PM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 | I'm near the end of another audio book on ancient history. Recently we passed the late period of the Seleucid empire. This is the power often referred to as "The Greeks" in Jewish tradition when relating the story of Hanukah. The author uses the Bible as a source, though not as the major one. Though not every paragraph cites sources, there is some citing of sources over every chapter. In this one I wonder how much is fact and how much myth. It doesn't seem farfetched for a decaying monarch to try to impose a cult with himself as the deity, but one wonders: How stupid and ignorant were Antiochus (the IV??) and his advisers? When Caligula ruled a much bigger empire, he tried inserting himself in the cults of all his subjects, without quite making himself a god. Consider two things: 1) Caligula was quite, quite mad and 2) Judea represented a far smaller portion of the Roman empire than it did of the Seleucid empire. Meaning, if someone would be unreasonable in stepping all over the religious sensibilities of a small, unimportant province, it would be the mad emperor himself. Yet Caligula retained enough of a grip to know better, after one of his advisers explained how that would go down in Jerusalem. So I tend to doubt this. There is no doubt the Jews rebelled against the Seleucids. They rebelled against every power that conquered them, after all (and there were many, some worse than others). Sure, there were good relations with Persia when Cyrus, described in the Bible as "christos."(!!), ruled over the place. But eventually other kings rose after him, and then came rebellion. This is not uncommon, BTW. Lots of other peoples did the same thing, over and over. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
January 15th, 2016 at 8:34:36 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
I think the answer is both/and.
Morality is not subjective. The situation and who is acting cannot make raping a child a good no matter how hard she or he tries. Context and all these things are important to morality but only in determining culpability, not if an action is good or not.
Nobody, especially Churchill would ever say it was a good thing to do. We might argue if we thought it necessary but I guarantee you that Churchill didn't go to bed that night saying, "Boy I sure am glad I let Coventry get bombed." He and many others probably racked their minds about other possibilities. Letting a place get bombed is not a moral good not matter what the circumstances might be. It might seem to be the only way and the circumstances might mitigate the moral culpability, but you can't make an evil into a good.
And do not confuse faith with blind acceptance.
Please see faith/trust above.
Yes, but at no point do I think I fully understand all the issues, theology, and history at play. My default position when I disagree with the Church is that I am more likely wrong than the hundreds and thousands of theologians and saints that have spent their whole lives studying this things that I have not. So I continue to research and learn. More often than not I discover that I am indeed wrong or that I have misunderstood the Church's teaching.
God does exist and can and is discovered all the time. Good or evil for that matter cannot exist universally without being grounded in something that is universal itself. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
January 15th, 2016 at 8:41:54 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
Good so now the next question you need to ask yourself is which has a more likely possibility? Instead of asking the ridiculous, why not begin with asking yourself if it is more probable that there is a beginning to the universe or not?
Exaggeration is the tool of the illogical or an unfair and unjust debater. You will recall that I am only saying that for there to be a universe at all logically requires the existence of God. You will also recall that I explicitly have said many times that the Bible is not a science textbook and that creation did not happen exactly as portrayed in either of the creation stories of Genesis.
Just ask yourself can energy come from nothing? Can energy spontaneously exist without any source?
I think I was hoping for a logical argument against God's existence and that narrows my chances to 0% of your posts. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
January 15th, 2016 at 8:45:01 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
I think we might also want to ask why do we need miracles like the ones documented in the Bible to believe? Many times Jesus warns us against believing just because of the signs He is performing. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
January 15th, 2016 at 8:47:11 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
Thanks for your concern. Good question about Judas. I think it shows very clearly that God is not going to force us to believe. We have our free will to reject Him, especially if He isn't doing what we want Him to do. God is pretty famous for that. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
January 16th, 2016 at 5:47:33 AM permalink | |
Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 |
Sure, let's ask that also. Why do you need the miracle of Jesus' resurrection to believe? "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
January 16th, 2016 at 6:06:01 AM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Whereas name-calling is the sine-qua-non of the mature, fair rhetorician. Good to know. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |