Prehistory stories
Posted: 17 March 2017 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  365
Joined  2015-11-28

It is inconceivable to me that anyone is still trying to apply the stories imagined during the time of human prehistory as having literal value today.  Stories of everything created by a supernatural being a few thousand years ago represent how people of that time explained the existence of everything a few thousand years ago.

I added “to me” after the use of inconceivable was criticized.

[ Edited: 19 March 2017 11:30 AM by AMH ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3499
Joined  2009-10-21

You really shouldn’t use the word “inconceivable” around sarcastic people.

But I’ll be nice and ASK you what you think it means. The other key word to define would be “apply”. Because it’s the type of application you mean that may be inconceivable, or not. If you are suggesting that any literature from the past, from a time when very little writing is available at all, should be shelved and forgotten, declared “completely studied and fully understood in its historical context”, that would be inconceivable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  365
Joined  2015-11-28
Lausten - 19 March 2017 08:33 AM

You really shouldn’t use the word “inconceivable” around sarcastic people.

Like you can’t make anything fool proof because they are too clever.

But I’ll be nice and ASK you what you think it means. The other key word to define would be “apply”. Because it’s the type of application you mean that may be inconceivable, or not. If you are suggesting that any literature from the past, from a time when very little writing is available at all, should be shelved and forgotten, declared “completely studied and fully understood in its historical context”, that would be inconceivable.

You sir maybe confusing “nice” with condescending. That’s not nice.

Why are you suggesting that I am suggested something other than what I said about taking those precious few manuscripts literally.

Those manuscripts belong in a category of literature that mixes what could have happened in reality with what could not have happened.

All of the manuscripts and artifacts that were preserved should be exhaustively studied and have been.  All I am saying is they should not be taken literally.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3499
Joined  2009-10-21
AMH - 19 March 2017 11:29 AM
Lausten - 19 March 2017 08:33 AM

You really shouldn’t use the word “inconceivable” around sarcastic people.

Like you can’t make anything fool proof because they are too clever.

But I’ll be nice and ASK you what you think it means. The other key word to define would be “apply”. Because it’s the type of application you mean that may be inconceivable, or not. If you are suggesting that any literature from the past, from a time when very little writing is available at all, should be shelved and forgotten, declared “completely studied and fully understood in its historical context”, that would be inconceivable.

You sir maybe confusing “nice” with condescending. That’s not nice.

Why are you suggesting that I am suggested something other than what I said about taking those precious few manuscripts literally.

Those manuscripts belong in a category of literature that mixes what could have happened in reality with what could not have happened.

All of the manuscripts and artifacts that were preserved should be exhaustively studied and have been.  All I am saying is they should not be taken literally.

Because you said “literal value”, not “taken literally”. That’s not nit picking, that’s two different things. That “category of literature” was one of the few categories that existed at the time, and people’s level of philosophical sophistication was far lower than your’s or mine. The concept of peer-reviewed history using evidence did not exist. Mixing reality with mythology was how they expressed their culture and their attempt to figure out why they were there and what justice was.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 02:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  365
Joined  2015-11-28

Lausten,  thanks. You helped me understand my post was written clumsily.  That was an excerpt from a segment of a Wordpress page I’m working on and I am now rewriting it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3499
Joined  2009-10-21
AMH - 19 March 2017 02:12 PM

Lausten,  thanks. You helped me understand my post was written clumsily.  That was an excerpt from a segment of a Wordpress page I’m working on and I am now rewriting it.

Well there’s something you don’t see every day.

I was really psyched for using “I don’t think you know what that word means”, for the actual word it was originally referring to. Guess that will have to wait for another day. smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 07:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1431
Joined  2012-04-25
AMH - 17 March 2017 03:03 PM

It is inconceivable to me that anyone is still trying to apply the stories imagined during the time of human prehistory as having literal value today.  Stories of everything created by a supernatural being a few thousand years ago represent how people of that time explained the existence of everything a few thousand years ago.

I added “to me” after the use of inconceivable was criticized.

I think it’s for the same reason some humans have gone to the moon, and others have never used a toilet. We’re a greedy selfish primitive bunch of animals still.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  365
Joined  2015-11-28

Yes, I think you are right. My source of anger is that religious doctrine has squandered hundreds of years of time and we allowed it because of our not being able to debunk the religious assertions or didn’t want to mainly because of what you are saying.

If evolution could have been taught after it was clear that we evolved instead of being created with a handful of dirt we would have developed education helping us to better understand our ferocious tribal past.

Education sans religious dogma would have better prepared us for managing the violent tedancies that were necessary in our past and have outlived there usefulness in a more populated, more civilized, more educated world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3499
Joined  2009-10-21

Being the “thrower of wrenches” here. I feel it’s important to point out that the ideas of innerancy and literalism are recent. The earliest stories were just that, tales, and everyone knew it. Or at least, they didn’t have an alternative way of passing on knowledge. After that is wasn’t so much being literal as the problem as claiming that one book was right, and only one book. But that had to be enforced with violence, so obviously many didn’t believe it.

It wasn’t until scholars within religion started list and publish the contradictions and critique the text that the backlash began and official document popped up saying, “the Bible is the literal word of God”. It’s really ancient stupidity so much as the old purposeful ignorance. Anyway, a subtle but important difference to me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  365
Joined  2015-11-28
Lausten - 20 March 2017 10:16 AM

Being the “thrower of wrenches” here. I feel it’s important to point out that the ideas of innerancy and literalism are recent. The earliest stories were just that, tales, and everyone knew it. Or at least, they didn’t have an alternative way of passing on knowledge. After that is wasn’t so much being literal as the problem as claiming that one book was right, and only one book. But that had to be enforced with violence, so obviously many didn’t believe it.

It wasn’t until scholars within religion started list and publish the contradictions and critique the text that the backlash began and official document popped up saying, “the Bible is the literal word of God”. It’s really ancient stupidity so much as the old purposeful ignorance. Anyway, a subtle but important difference to me.

What’s your point? You little wrench thrower.?  Are you starting a new topic?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3499
Joined  2009-10-21

My point, if I have one, which is up for debate, is that Biblical literalism is not the best bogeyman to go after. Some set of rules would have probably been adopted in the last years of the Roman Empire and would have been violently enforced. Or, one of the other empires at that time would have won out. I think his is evidenced by the non-theistic religions in the east, that also had dogma. Genghis Khan didn’t care much for religion, but he violently oppressed people, using his strict rules of being a good warrior. Peaceful philosophies that explain why we are here and help us get comfortable with who we are don’t stand much of a chance against those sorts of forces.

Or look at what we have right now. A completely non-religious leader has gained the backing of the evangelicals. They don’t care about Biblical criticism, they both want power and will use each other to get it. Selfishness and ego are the enemies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  365
Joined  2015-11-28

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
‹‹ Doubt, by Hecht      Prognostication ››