|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2002 : 21:33:38 [Permalink]
|
From the header it looks like an anonymous internet posting:
quote:
oo bad there's no scholarship involved, January 4, 2002
Reviewer: trueskeptic (see more about me) from Gaithersburg, MD United States
More entertainment for conspiracy buffs! - but with much less honest intellectual input than most.
If this is the case DA is reaching new levels of dishonesty if that's possible. I guess this makes us all experts.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 06:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It should be emphasized that the purpose of this summary account is not to suggest that such ideas were taken over directly into the Roman mystery-cult. On the contrary, no direct continuity, either of a general kind or in specific details, can be demonstrated between the Perso-Hellenistic worship of Mitra and the Roman mysteries of Mithras. The oft repeated attempts to trace a seamless history of Mythras from the second millennium BC to the fourth century AD simply tells us something quite general about the relative stability, or, as it may be, flexibility, of religious ideas. We cannot account for Roman Mithras in terms borrowed from Persian Mitra.
< ... snip ... >
There is another reason too for thinking that it makes little sense to treat the mysteries of Mithras as but one stage in a longer evolution. The mysteries cannot be shown to have developed from Persian religious ideas, nor does it make sense to interpret them as a fore-runner of Christianity. Both views neglect the sheer creativity that gave rise to the mystery-cult. Mythraism was an independent creation with its own unique value within a given historical, specifically Roman, context.
[ and later, in a chapter titled Mithras and Christ ]
Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Chritianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world.
- see The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries by Manfred Clauss
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 07:04:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Legallee Insane
Do we have concrete proof that the bible isn't simply the work of some person with an overactive imagination.
Is that a position you're willing to defend, or simply rhetoric? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 08:55:38 [Permalink]
|
Slater seems to forget he recomended BULFINCH'S...to me a while back and as far as the reliability of THE MERIDIAN HANDBOOK.. /b] quote:
[b] Classical Mythology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholars 225
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised January 30, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
Instructor Information
Texts
Class Description
Schedule of Readings and Assignments
Web Project
Notes on Greek Enlightenment of the Fifth Century
Mythology on the WWW
Texts
Required:
Barry Powell, Classical Myth (Prentice Hall: 1998), second edition. The Powell text is the most recent, and in my opinion, the best introductory text on classical myth. Prentice Hall offers quizzes and other learning aids. You can take the quizzes online and have the results forwarded to me. Although the quizzes test factual knowledge, I feel you take benefit from mastering the material. Go to Classical Myth
Epic of Gilgamesh, tr. N.K. Sandars (Penguin)
Poems of Heaven and Hell from Ancient Mesopotamia, tr. N.K. Sandars (Penguin)
Grene and Lattimore, Euripides (University of Chicago Press)
R. Fagles, Aeschylus, The Oresteia (Penguin 1977)
Dowden, The Uses of Greek Mythology (Routledge 1992)
Suggested:
Edward Tripp, The Meridian Handbook of Classical Mythology (Meridian 1970). This is a great encyclopedic resource. Tripp lists the who's who of Classical Mythology in alphabetical order.
Some of the texts represent great, seminal primary texts, texts which have shaped western literature. Any other readings will be in the form of xerox material or will be available on the web.
Back to Table of Contents
Course Description
During the semester, we will be reading, discussing and analyzing the major myths of the Mesopotamians, Greeks and Romans in their cultural and historical contexts. We will also look at the uses of myth and how the ancients, especially the Greeks, reacted to them. As we make our way through ancient myths, we will be reading acknowledged great works of literature and subjecting them to modern modes of interpretation (psychoanalysis, structuralism, anthropological, etc.) Classics myth is not a course in the telling of stories, but rather a course that examines what these stories tell us about ancient thought and culture.
Class will consist of lectures, discussion, viewing of slides, videos, computer demonstrations, etc. There is also a computer component: threaded discussion list, web page creation, quizzes online, etc. (see below). Because we are a small class, your presence is requested at every meeting. You will be allowed two unexcused absences. Excused absences are given only for extreme and compelling reasons. I also ask that you read the requested material before coming to
I think the fact its recomended for this class lifts it above Slaters denoucement as a "childrens' book" quote:
Posted - 12/13/2002 : 14:57:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweet mother of god, DA, how many times have I given you the references? And still you look in childrens books and have the nerve to complain
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 09:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Atomic accuses: quote:
If this is the case DA is reaching new levels of dishonesty if that's possible
Strange coming from someone who lied about me only quoting from "Christians sources" FYI It came from a book review of one your Christ -Myther webp's from the site posted on page 3  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/14/2002 09:05:17 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 10:41:33 [Permalink]
|
Sorry if this seems to be out of date, but back on Page 7 of Book II of DJRE I found this post:quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubtquote:
Originally posted by DVF
ReasonableDoubt,
I am very interested in the evidence you claim to have.
Sorry, but I simple don't find that statement credible. On what basis, for example, do you disregard http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html?quote:
Originally posted by Slater
Sorry if this seems rather disrespectful, but I really don't care about the opinion of scholars.
And I'm sory if this seems disrespectful, but I do.
I find myself in the middle ground of this discussion of scholarship and the findings/opinions of scholars. The BibleFacts site seems to give somewhat biased views of various topics (as one might expect from those who are, after all, merely human)--although seemingly rigorous in its references. Thus I can see (  ) Remarkably Deep's respect for scholars such as these.
On the other hand, they seem to be un-open to possibilities which are not easily and conventionally supported by "standard" scholastic references and findings. In this sense, I can understand Slater's disdain/indifference for "the opinion of scholars"---as unscientific as such a comment might, on its surface, sound.
I wonder if this discussion might continue----under milder, less stormy conditions? 
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 11:59:06 [Permalink]
|
Again, sorry to be so ploddingly slow but: From Page 5 of Book II or DJRE:quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:quote:
Originally posted by Tim:
I get so frustrated by people presupposing the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.
Perhaps a minor point: there is a difference between "presupposing the existence of Jesus ... the Christ" and supporting the historicity of Jesus the man. I think there's good reason to be agnostic with respect to the latter question.
Somehow I find easier to be agnostic wrt the former question than wrt the latter question.
Jesus, the Christ is, to me, as someone of non-Jewish heritage, a matter of complete indifference. Was he the awaited Christ? I don't know; I don't care; and, most importantly, I don't see how we, 2KYrs later, can possibly know. I have never noticed anything that I would call "evidential" in the Gospels (--operating under the assumption that the Gospels are authentic).
On the other hand, I don't see the "...good reason to be agnostic with respect to the latter question,"---that Jesus was a real personage with most-all of the Bibical tales being, in fact, true stories.
While, for example, the Mithran Conspiracy is mentioned often in this thread's pages, no one has mentioned that the Sufis carry with them a considerable body of (verbal) lore about Jesus. Since there is strong reason to think that the class of Sufi dates back to Zoroasterian times, it seems to me that their traditions, oral or otherwise, should be taken seriously. (There are some who think that the 3 Magi were all Sufi.  )
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 12/14/2002 12:22:26 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 12:29:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I wonder if this discussion might continue----under milder, less stormy conditions?
I'm a bit unclear. Are you saying that you would like to addess the topic, or are you requesting that someone here perform for your amusement? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 12:36:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Somehow I find easier to be agnostic wrt the former question [i.e., Jesus the Christ - RD] than wrt the latter question [i.e., Jesus the man - RD].
Then I would encourage you to start a new thread defending an agnostic position with regard to virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, etc., etc. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 12:40:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
... that Jesus was a real personage with most-all of the Bibical tales being, in fact, true stories.
So, having rejected agnosticism here, do you support this proposition or reject it? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 13:30:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I wonder if this discussion might continue----under milder, less stormy conditions?
I'm a bit unclear. Are you saying that you would like to addess the topic, or are you requesting that someone here perform for your amusement?
I only meant that the questions of whether or not to spend a lot of time studing scholars' findings and how much credence to give those findings were interesting back in Part II.
As to your choice of an extracted sentence from my post: In Part II, Slater seemed to think of you as a closed-minded, pompous, sarcastic bi*ch and you seemed to think of him as a bumble-headed buffoon who wouldn't know a true debate if one bit him on the nose. These seemed, to me, to be conditions not conducive to truth-seeking.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 13:36:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
... that Jesus was a real personage with most-all of the Bibical tales being, in fact, true stories.
So, having rejected agnosticism here, do you support this proposition or reject it?
Yes, ReasonableDoubt, I support the proposition that Jesus was a real personage with most-all of the first-person NT stories about him being reasonably-factual and true.
Your refences in Part II helped dispel any of the doubts that Slater had engendered in my thinking back then. Still: It's undoubtedly a complex situation after that many centuries; far too complex for a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 13:46:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Somehow I find easier to be agnostic wrt the former question [i.e., Jesus the Christ - RD] than wrt the latter question [i.e., Jesus the man - RD].
Then I would encourage you to start a new thread defending an agnostic position with regard to virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, etc., etc.
I don't see, ReasonableDoubt, how any of these issues (to include the "etc. etc.") has a connection to "the Christ". Certainly it's possible but . . . .
As to the issue of "the resurrection", please recall that I am deeply skeptical that the Jesus as described in the Gospels could have possibly been executed. Given the premises from the NT, that conclusion seems, to me, to be nonsensical. As to the other things (walking on water; multiplying fishes; raising the dead; improving wine), they can all be successfully explained in the context of modern physics--without having to resort to the 'charged' word "miracle".
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 13:59:18 [Permalink]
|
The main problem that is unique to biblical scholarship, CO, is FAITH. Faith being an insistence, even an enforcement, of credulity. In no other field would such a thing even be tolerated.
Let's say I was a ceramics scholar. And I wrote about the legendary plaid urns of the Ming dynasty. I found that the only records of these plaid urns came from generations after they were supposed to have been broken. I found that no one mentioned these truly wonderful plaid urns while they were around, and that they were totally contradictory to every urn that existed in the Ming dynasty. That when the stories of these urns were written, they were written by Scotsmen, who made a great deal of money off of the sale of the story.
The conclusion I reach from the evidence, and the lack of evidence where it should be, is that there were no Plaid Urns of the Ming Dynasty.
This conclusion would in all likelihood be generally accepted.
BUT…add FAITH to the mixture and you would get arguments like--I am only saying these things because I have an anti-ceramic bias. The Scotsmen said that there were eye-witnesses. There is evidence but you refuse to accept it and we aren't going to tell you what it is because you are so closed minded that you won't believe it even though it's true. The Plaid Urns are real because they have given meaning to my life and the lives of thousands. You can't be everywhere so you can't use a universal negative and claim that there are no Ming Plaid Urns. I can't prove that there are Plaid Urns but you can't prove that there aren't so you should say that there are.
There would even be people who understood my case for there being no evidence that the Plaid Urns existed but still want to hold on to at least a crumb of their faith. They might claim that perhaps the Ming Plaid Urns were actually based on Ming tea cups. We know they had a lot of tea services and maybe one that wasn't very plaid…through years of story telling…
See how silly this sounds when it is about ceramics. Hey, if there are no plaid urns there are just no plaid urns, end of story.
But with biblical scholarship you find that the people most drawn to the field are the ones with the highest degree of faith. Even worst than that is that the people who supply the funding (I know more about fundraising than I ever, ever, wanted to. I've been "courting" celebrities all week.) are not interested in facts. They are only interested in having their beliefs (that they make they money off of to begin with) reinforced.
This is not to say that all biblical scholarship is useless. But you have to pay the strictest attention to be able to discern when you are being told an actual fact and when you are hearing a statement of faith. And you have to expect to be attacked for doing so, while in every other field of scholarship it is what is required of you.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
