Biblical Figures' Historicity Confirmed by Extra-Biblical Sources - Do you care?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/22/2024 at 12:02 PM, Mfbnew said:

Apparently regardless of if it is irrelevant to the question at hand.  I mean have we checked the horoscopes of those involved?  Where does one draw the line about what is and what is not relevant?   For me, worrying about the history of what may be total mythology is about as relevant as worrying about horoscopes.

If it IS mythology- if none of it "really happened"- whatever that means- it still can teach us valuable information about our own spiritual growth, as ALL the 20 or so parables Christ himself told for that purpose.

Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Jordan Peterson would likely agree.

On 11/22/2024 at 12:02 PM, Mfbnew said:

Suppose the BOM is all "mythology"?  For me, that is an irrelevant question ........................ 

So the BofM, if not mythological, that would also be irrelevant?  I take it that you'd say the same of the Bible.

On 11/22/2024 at 12:02 PM, Mfbnew said:

Look at the placebo effect and ponder on how the simple belief in a fake pill can actually HEAL people!   Suppose belief in some religious text can do the same thing?  Is it suddenly evil even if it has positive results?

And, yes, Alma 32:30 is very much an example of pragmatism and the experimental method.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Jordan Peterson would likely agree.

So the BofM, if not mythological, that would also be irrelevant?  I take it that you'd say the same of the Bible.

And, yes, Alma 32:30 is very much an example of pragmatism and the experimental method.  Nothing wrong with that.

For me, it gets down to finding which is the basis of one's faith.

Is one actually believing in the alleged 'scriptures' of men and what they teach based on hearsay "evidence" about things that happened 3,000 years ago, or does one trust one's own heart, based upon that little voice which can thunder transcendent truth within ourselves, and accepting the message in our own hearts which says that there IS a God who loves me enough to send me  messages written in my own heart, which transcends the idol of men's jabbering? 

Do you trust the childish arguments and hearsay, or that which can change your life, written in your very being?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

For me, it gets down to finding which is the basis of one's faith.

Is one actually believing in the alleged 'scriptures' of men and what they teach based on hearsay "evidence" about things that happened 3,000 years ago, or does one trust one's own heart, based upon that little voice which can thunder transcendent truth within ourselves, and accepting the message in our own hearts which says that there IS a God who loves me enough to send me  messages written in my own heart, which transcends the idol of men's jabbering?

“Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Lk 24:32)  That is a transcendent testimony not based on hearsay, but on personal experience.

8 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Do you trust the childish arguments and hearsay, or that which can change your life, written in your very being?

Jesus asks us to be as humble as little children (Matt 18:3), which is essential to finding the key of knowledge (the Holy Spirit).

[Mfbnew]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

“Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Lk 24:32)  That is a transcendent testimony not based on hearsay, but on personal experience.

Jesus asks us to be as humble as little children (Matt 18:3), which is essential to finding the key of knowledge (the Holy Spirit).

"Facts", including history- teach us what others think they know.  It is "objective" meaning- treating facts as objects to be bandied about poked with a stick and kicked around as one might kick a rock in the path.  And it is always changing.

But internal knowledge/experience changes the heart itself and when the heart changes , it can change WHO WE ARE.

 THAT becomes an eternal , unchanging, truth for us individually.

And as more people have those experiences, it changes the world, as Christianity has changed the world.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

"Facts", including history- teach us what others think they know.  It is "objective" meaning- treating facts as objects to be bandied about poked with a stick and kicked around as one might kick a rock in the path.  And it is always changing.

Nope.  When SpaceX launches a rocket, the entire process is governed by the fundamental, objective laws of physics and by the engineering expertise of those preparing that launch.  There is nothing random in that process.  Humans cannot imagine "facts," but only discover and utilize them.

16 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

But internal knowledge/experience changes the heart itself and when the heart changes , it can change WHO WE ARE.

 THAT becomes an eternal , unchanging, truth for us individually.

And as more people have those experiences, it changes the world, as Christianity has changed the world.

POV does matter, and Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism have changed the world by providing powerful and meaningfully divergent points of view.  People can indeed be deeply affected by their internal responses to those and other religions.  How can anyone "prove" the "truth" of any of those divergent points of view?  "Proof" will always be a matter of opinion, and non-transferrable in such instances.

SpaceX doesn't care which religion its scientists believe in.  It just doesn't matter.

[Mfbnew]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  When SpaceX launches a rocket, the entire process is governed by the fundamental, objective laws of physics and by the engineering expertise of those preparing that launch.  There is nothing random in that process.  Humans cannot imagine "facts," but only discover and utilize them....

 

SpaceX doesn't care which religion its scientists believe in.  It just doesn't matter.

I think we are not speaking the same "religion".  You are making my point for me!

Yes, they are "objective laws" where all the measuring systems are invented by humans, and the engineering expertise is OBVIOUSLY the opinions of people with "engineering expertise".

It is certainly true that SpaceX does not care about religion and that is exactly the point I am trying to get across!

Science and "objective" statements are exactly that- all are based on HUMAN PERCEPTION, the qualia presented and how limited those are- and then it is expressed in language- another Human invention full of ambiguity and which automatically CANNOT describe "the world as it is" independent of human perception.

And of course there ARE secular religions- which are based on the unconsidered alleged "laws" of science which change daily- all based on the silly idea that human  perception gives us all we can know about the world.

Of course that does not even have any thought about the PURPOSE and IMPORTANCE of what is being done.

A hundred years ago, humanity found ways to use refined oil to make machines move around, not even thinking about the consequences of taking oil out of the earth and burning a limited resource which causes the atmosphere to include unplanned amounts of CO2,  and now all we can say is "OOPS"!

I have a page from a book by Henri Bergson which I will type out and put it here on this board.

Bergson was an incredibly important philosopher who taught us the difference between human objective perception and what he calls the "absolute" which we would call "revelation" or "intuition".

The below link does not go into this in detail, but at lease may teach us about Bergson and how he changed philosophical perception, resulting ultimately resulting in Phenomenology- the European version of what we know as "Pragmatism" - or perhaps more correctly as "Functionalism": what are the consequences and purpose of certain ideas.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Mfbnew said:

I think we are not speaking the same "religion".  You are making my point for me!

Yes, they are "objective laws" where all the measuring systems are invented by humans, and the engineering expertise is OBVIOUSLY the opinions of people with "engineering expertise".

It is certainly true that SpaceX does not care about religion and that is exactly the point I am trying to get across!

Science and "objective" statements are exactly that- all are based on HUMAN PERCEPTION, the qualia presented and how limited those are- and then it is expressed in language- another Human invention full of ambiguity and which automatically CANNOT describe "the world as it is" independent of human perception.

And of course there ARE secular religions- which are based on the unconsidered alleged "laws" of science which change daily- all based on the silly idea that human  perception gives us all we can know about the world.

Of course that does not even have any thought about the PURPOSE and IMPORTANCE of what is being done.

A hundred years ago, humanity found ways to use refined oil to make machines move around, not even thinking about the consequences of taking oil out of the earth and burning a limited resource which causes the atmosphere to include unplanned amounts of CO2,  and now all we can say is "OOPS"!

I have a page from a book by Henri Bergson which I will type out and put it here on this board.

Bergson was an incredibly important philosopher who taught us the difference between human objective perception and what he calls the "absolute" which we would call "revelation" or "intuition".

The below link does not go into this in detail, but at lease may teach us about Bergson and how he changed philosophical perception, resulting ultimately resulting in Phenomenology- the European version of what we know as "Pragmatism" - or perhaps more correctly as "Functionalism": what are the consequences and purpose of certain ideas.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/

While I like phenomenological analysis, and it is nice to contemplate some imaginary Platonic ideal, and while David Hume was certainly onto something when he observed that we are prisoners of our senses, it makes no practical sense to claim that we can do nothing and don't know anything.  Humans are not dharma bums, although some of them certainly act like it.

The proof is in the pudding, and SpaceX is not engaged in inventing the laws of physics, but rather in applying actual science.  Your notions of that being no more than perception lead to nihilism and collapse of civilization -- which is why AI will soon take over and eliminate the human infestation.  

 

[CV75]

On 11/20/2024 at 6:36 PM, Mfbnew said:

Aha!  THAT I can understand!  I sometimes look at the historical reasons why my ancestors came to this country and feel closer to them.  But of course that has nothing to do with my testimony or knowledge of their lives.

Poland may still be the "most Catholic" country in the world- I have not checked the stats recently- but the reason they left their homeland has nothing to do with my change from 1000 years of Polish Catholicism to "LDSism"

But my Catholic family still thinks I made a big mistake.

Fundamentally, I believe any kind of study leads to faith in Christ when the light of Christ is involved. It is the constant which operates with so many consciences processing so much evidence. So, as you point out, the topic and evidence don’t matter; if not family history, then philosophy (as in your case), or perhaps for others, studying history related to the Bible (which contains a lot of fiction) or the Book of Mormon (which includes a section on money, a fiction!). I think we tend to prioritize whatever topic was associated with that first spark to conversion, though fundamentally it was the light of Christ all along.

[The Nehor]

On 11/19/2024 at 7:39 PM, smac97 said:

For those who believe in the Bible, does any of the information such as what is shown above, extra-biblical confirmation of the historicity of some figures referenced in the Bible, move the needle for you?  One way or another?

Same question for those who do not believe in the Bible.

Not really.

The New Testament characters in particular that appear just show that the people writing the Gospels and the Book of Acts had a basic understanding of who some of the Roman officials at the time were. That is not that impressive. They were written within living memory of the people they mention. Mark probably got one Herod wrong but I can’t blame the writer since there are way too many people named Herod. Seriously annoying if you try to follow who is who.

The few characters that are exclusively important in the Bible (and not to other historians at the time) are mentioned in Josephus and include John the Baptist who Josephus has a soft spot for, James whose death got a mention, and Jesus himself. The Jesus reference is often considered to have been either added later or amended later.

This doesn’t really support much except that the writer knew who was emperor and who some of the governors and regional officials were at the time. The Old Testament is not much better. Most of the confirmations are from a list of monarchs proving they got them mostly right in the Old Testament.

Taking it as evidence that the Bible is attached to history in a way that polytheist myths contemporary with the Bible are not is not really in dispute whether you believe the Bible is inspired or not.

[The Nehor]

On 11/25/2024 at 2:55 PM, Mfbnew said:

And as more people have those experiences, it changes the world, as Christianity has changed the world.

How so? I don’t mean that Christianity didn’t have a huge impact on the regions where Christianity flourished. It obviously did. I mean is there some divine change that came from Christianity that is obviously different from the usual shifts for ideology and religious teachings?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

For those who believe in the Bible, does any of the information such as what is shown above, extra-biblical confirmation of the historicity of some figures referenced in the Bible, move the needle for you?  One way or another?

Same question for those who do not believe in the Bible.

Not really.

The New Testament characters in particular that appear just show that the people writing the Gospels and the Book of Acts had a basic understanding of who some of the Roman officials at the time were. That is not that impressive. They were written within living memory of the people they mention. Mark probably got one Herod wrong but I can’t blame the writer since there are way too many people named Herod. Seriously annoying if you try to follow who is who.

The few characters that are exclusively important in the Bible (and not to other historians at the time) are mentioned in Josephus and include John the Baptist who Josephus has a soft spot for, James whose death got a mention, and Jesus himself. The Jesus reference is often considered to have been either added later or amended later.

This doesn’t really support much except that the writer knew who was emperor and who some of the governors and regional officials were at the time. The Old Testament is not much better. Most of the confirmations are from a list of monarchs proving they got them mostly right in the Old Testament.

Taking it as evidence that the Bible is attached to history in a way that polytheist myths contemporary with the Bible are not is not really in dispute whether you believe the Bible is inspired or not.

I pretty much agree with you.  I've previously commented on this here:

Quote

Because the Bible’s historical transmission can be discerned and explained naturalistically (that is, without any necessary reliance on “divine” intervention in the transmission of the text), the antiquity of the Bible is not probative of its status as scripture (any more than Homer’s Illiad is probative of the Greek Pantheon).  This is why skeptics of the Bible find little or no persuasive value in archaeological artifacts presented as “evidence” for the Bible’s status as scripture and record of miraculous events.  After all, Homer’s Illiad has a historical pedigree tracing back to antiquity, as well as some archaeological verification.  This does not mean, however, that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.  As one atheist fellow put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is {that} the Bible is a really old fraud."
 
In contrast, The Book of Mormon is differently situated from the Bible.  There is a built-in gap in its historical transmission, consisting of some 1,400 years from when Moroni buried the plates to 1823, when the plates were re-discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr.  This “transmission gap” effectively precludes a naturalistic explanation of the text’s antiquity.   Consequently, if we someday discover persuasive archaeological or other evidence for the antiquity of The Book of Mormon, such evidence would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of the book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.
 
Put another way, the antiquity and truth claims of The Book of Mormon are intertwined, such that evidence of the former may  simultaneously be evidence of the latter.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  When SpaceX launches a rocket, the entire process is governed by the fundamental, objective laws of physics and by the engineering expertise of those preparing that launch.  There is nothing random in that process.  Humans cannot imagine "facts," but only discover and utilize them....

 

SpaceX doesn't care which religion its scientists believe in.  It just doesn't matter.

I think we are not speaking the same "religion".  You are making my point for me!

Yes, they are "objective laws" where all the measuring systems are invented by humans, and the engineering expertise is OBVIOUSLY the opinions of people with "engineering expertise".

It is certainly true that SpaceX does not care about religion and that is exactly the point I am trying to get across!

Science and "objective" statements are exactly that- all are based on HUMAN PERCEPTION, the qualia presented and how limited those are- and then it is expressed in language- another Human invention full of ambiguity and which automatically CANNOT describe "the world as it is" independent of human perception.

And of course there ARE secular religions- which are based on the unconsidered alleged "laws" of science which change daily- all based on the silly idea that human  perception gives us all we can know about the world.

Of course that does not even have any thought about the PURPOSE and IMPORTANCE of what is being done.

A hundred years ago, humanity found ways to use refined oil to make machines move around, not even thinking about the consequences of taking oil out of the earth and burning a limited resource which causes the atmosphere to include unplanned amounts of CO2,  and now all we can say is "OOPS"!

I have a page from a book by Henri Bergson which I will type out and put it here on this board.

Bergson was an incredibly important philosopher who taught us the difference between human objective perception and what he calls the "absolute" which we would call "revelation" or "intuition".

The below link does not go into this in detail, but at lease may teach us about Bergson and how he changed philosophical perception, resulting ultimately resulting in Phenomenology- the European version of what we know as "Pragmatism" - or perhaps more correctly as "Functionalism": what are the consequences and purpose of certain ideas.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/

 

[Mfbnew]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  When SpaceX launches a rocket, the entire process is governed by the fundamental, objective laws of physics and by the engineering expertise of those preparing that launch.  There is nothing random in that process.  Humans cannot imagine "facts," but only discover and utilize them....

 

SpaceX doesn't care which religion its scientists believe in.  It just doesn't matter.

Of course you are right and that is the whole point that you appear to be missing .

  They don't care about religion because they do not even see the value of purpose in human life or that God can "speak" to us through a "still small voice" much less have "prophets" who are, scientifically speaking, charlatans.

So why WOULD Space X care about religion?   

After all the conversations we have had in the past, and all your work in the MESSAGES found in scripture in the past,  it is odd that you would become a positivist, apparently denying the value of the parables in what some see as "sacred text"- and it appears that you are saying that scientific "analysis" can teach us about God.

There is no scientific basis for belief in God.   There is no scientific basis for belief in the Book of Mormon or the values it teaches.   From a scientific view the "Atonement" is a ridiculous story.   As a positivist, how do you justify your highly valuable work in Mormon studies as worth anything of value?

Obviously there must be some great misunderstanding going on here.

Of course I do not eschew the value of science- and that has nothing to do with an explanation and justification for spiritual experience.

The entire point is that there is no scientific basis for religious experience.   

 

 

Edited November 27, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Fundamentally, I believe any kind of study leads to faith in Christ when the light of Christ is involved. It is the constant which operates with so many consciences processing so much evidence. So, as you point out, the topic and evidence don’t matter; if not family history, then philosophy (as in your case), or perhaps for others, studying history related to the Bible (which contains a lot of fiction) or the Book of Mormon (which includes a section on money, a fiction!). I think we tend to prioritize whatever topic was associated with that first spark to conversion, though fundamentally it was the light of Christ all along.

Yes, it cannot be otherwise IMO!

Certainly it is not science - unless the scientific observation itself is seen as a "revelation".  And there are certain passages in D&C - such as the notion that even "spirit" is matter- that CAN be seen as both science AND revelation.  And I can certainly see how certain science "discoveries" could have been revelations.

As I have mentioned here before, many believe that "The Universe" speaks to us- this "religion" is even known as "Secular Pantheism".

 

Edited November 27, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Of course you are right and that is the whole point that you appear to be missing .

  They don't care about religion because they do not even see the value of purpose in human life or that God can "speak" to us through a "still small voice" much less have "prophets" who are, scientifically speaking, charlatans.

So why WOULD Space X care about religion? 

You miss the point:  science and technology are independent modes of thought and study; faith and religious belief are independent modes of thought.  Many scientists and engineers are religious, but that has nothing to do with their work in STEM fields.  Same for the religious plumber who is clearing your pipes.  You are making a serious category mistake if you confuse those two separate modes of thought.

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

After all the conversations we have had in the past, and all your work in the MESSAGES found in scripture in the past,  it is odd that you would become a positivist, apparently denying the value of the parables in what some see as "sacred text"- and it appears that you are saying that scientific "analysis" can teach us about God.  There is no scientific basis for belief in God. 

Not sure where you got those bolded notions.  I have never made those statements.  You are deeply confused.

Parables can be found in both the Bible and in other literature -- in each case formulated in the same way and serving a similar purpose.

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

There is no scientific basis for belief in the Book of Mormon or the values it teaches.   From a scientific view the "Atonement" is a ridiculous story.   As a positivist, how do you justify your highly valuable work in Mormon studies as worth anything of value?

What "highly valuable work" of mine are you conjuring up?  And thanks for the compliment, unless you are being sarcastic.  

Contrary to your bald claim, there is plenty of hard scientific confirmation of claims made in the Book of Mormon, just as there is for claims made in the Bible and in Homeric Epic.  Every historian knows how such scientific evidence is assembled and presented, and it has nothing to do with faith or religious belief.  Scientists do not test atonement theory since it is not amenable to scientific testing.  Instead, it is solely a matter of faith.  Again, your deep confusion is apparent.

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

.........................

Of course I do not eschew the value of science- and that has nothing to do with an explanation and justification for spiritual experience.

The entire point is that there is no scientific basis for religious experience.

Again, you present the same category mistake.  Science and religious belief are unrelated modes of thought.  Saying that "there is no scientific basis for religious experience" is a meaningless statement.  You are mixing apples and oranges.

That is not at all like you, Mark.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How so? I don’t mean that Christianity didn’t have a huge impact on the regions where Christianity flourished. It obviously did. I mean is there some divine change that came from Christianity that is obviously different from the usual shifts for ideology and religious teachings?

Yes.  Some scholars take Scandanavian society as a prime example of a major cultural change for the good.  They were the last Europeans to be converted, so have more written accounts to examine.  What some historians found was that abandonment of Norse/Viking ways for adoption of Christianity led to a culture of forgiveness -- which led to a far more successful and peaceful Scandanavian culture generally.

Bertrand Russell would not of course agree at all since he saw all religion as very dangerous.  In his view, the history of Christianity was shockingly bestial.  Why?   Because humans are beasts which need some sort of systematic ideology to help them adjust satisfactorily to the needs of civil society.  One might even claim that Buddhism and Confucianism were very helpful to Asian societies for the same reason.

Whether humans will reach 2100 without disappearing through self-immolation is the current question.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, you present the same category mistake.  Science and religious belief are unrelated modes of thought.  Saying that "there is no scientific basis for religious experience" is a meaningless statement.  You are mixing apples and oranges.

That is not at all like you, Mark.

My guess is you two are starting by saying the same thing in that both of you see science and religion as essentially two different things, Mark often uses the term languages (or at least agrees with me when I call them languages).  Religious methodology and scientific methodology are two different ways of interacting with the world that don’t overlap in the conclusions of either of you if I understand both of you correctly.  I believe when Mark says “there is no scientific basis for religious experience”, he is saying “science cannot be used to explain religious experience”…but maybe I am wrong, especially since I am not all that certain why you are saying it is a meaningless statement.  I am thinking you and I are interpreting what Mark said differently.

The difference to me, where confusion and difference of opinion is occurring is what you both do with that conclusion.  I was going to lay out how I saw you both doing it, but changed my mind.  But I don’t think I see either of you making a category mistake as you both appear to view science and religious experience as distinct methodologies.

Quote

Of course I do not eschew the value of science- and that has nothing to do with an explanation and justification for spiritual experience.

Quote

Every historian knows how such scientific evidence is assembled and presented, and it has nothing to do with faith or religious belief.  Scientists do not test atonement theory since it is not amenable to scientific testing.  Instead, it is solely a matter of faith.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bertrand Russell would not of course agree at all since he saw all religion as very dangerous.  In his view, the history of Christianity was shockingly bestial.  Why?   Because humans are beasts which need some sort of systematic ideology to help them adjust satisfactorily to the needs of civil society. 

Why would it be dangerous in Russell’s view if a systematic ideology was needed and religion provides one?

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Yes, it cannot be otherwise IMO!

Certainly it is not science - unless the scientific observation itself is seen as a "revelation".  And there are certain passages in D&C - such as the notion that even "spirit" is matter- that CAN be seen as both science AND revelation.  And I can certainly see how certain science "discoveries" could have been revelations.

As I have mentioned here before, many believe that "The Universe" speaks to us- this "religion" is even known as "Secular Pantheism".

 

I think history, if it is to be considered a science (social science?) illustrates many of the pitfalls that are overlooked in all science and technology since they are comparatively so much easier to spot (Googled): limited data availability, subjective interpretation, limitations for verification, historian bias, reliance on storytelling, challenges in quantitative analysis. The same as those found in faith and religion. Why doesn’t art have these problems?

How closer is history to art than science? It is often included in the humanities along with the arts, philosophy and religion. Seems that historians have a lot of flexibility and latitude in how they approach their discipline! Which might explain why anyone’s attitude toward scripture as historical can be all over the place.

What ties them all together for me is that light of Christ is involved in any/all of these disciplines. By practicing them, we harness the laws and powers His light governs, even to the point of abuse (within certain existential/cosmic limits).

[Mfbnew]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

My guess is you two are starting by saying the same thing in both of you see science and religion are as essentially two different things, Mark often uses the term languages (or at least agrees with me when I call them languages).  Religious methodology and scientific methodology are two different ways of interacting with the world that don’t overlap in the conclusions of either of you if I understand both of you correctly.  I believe when Mark says “there is no scientific basis for religious experience”, he is saying “science cannot be used to explain religious experience”…but maybe I am wrong, especially since I am not all that certain why you are saying it is a meaningless statement.  I am thinking you are I are interpreting what Mark said differently.

The difference to me, where confusion and difference of opinion is occurring is what you both do with that conclusion.  I was going to lay out how I saw you both doing it, but changed my mind.  But I don’t think I see either of you making a category mistake as you both appear to view science and religious experience as distinct methodologies.

Yes this is it.

Wittgenstein's "language games" and category errors.   The usual goblins- but Halloween is over!  Positivism is dead and buried, and we are bleeding members because everyone puts science ahead of the importance of subjectivity in one's life.   Science is useless in finding a spouse.  Receiving a message from God or "The Universe" is superstition.

If humans did not invent the disciplined thought of science, who did?  And if God is a human, then is humanism , theology?

Now we see OURSELVES in a dark mirror- but THEN- in God's realm we will see "face to face"- seeing God as he "really is".

We do not see God's reality while we are stuck with human brains- NOT until we are free of all that meat in our heads.  We are all meatheads!

Just a misunderstanding- thanks for your solution!

 

Edited November 27, 2024 by Mfbnew

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  Some scholars take Scandanavian society as a prime example of a major cultural change for the good.  They were the last Europeans to be converted, so have more written accounts to examine.  What some historians found was that abandonment of Norse/Viking ways for adoption of Christianity led to a culture of forgiveness -- which led to a far more successful and peaceful Scandanavian culture generally.

Bertrand Russell would not of course agree at all since he saw all religion as very dangerous.  In his view, the history of Christianity was shockingly bestial.  Why?   Because humans are beasts which need some sort of systematic ideology to help them adjust satisfactorily to the needs of civil society.  One might even claim that Buddhism and Confucianism were very helpful to Asian societies for the same reason.

Whether humans will reach 2100 without disappearing through self-immolation is the current question.

Yeah, I haven’t read anything that convinces me that Christianity led to a culture of forgiveness in Scandinavia following conversion. While I am glad many of the Norse pagan practices ended (lots of human sacrifice, possible rape murders, and other not so good rites) I don’t see the leaders suddenly becoming more merciful.

This sounds like the old argument Gibbon made from the other side about how he thought Christianity weakened the Roman Empire with its teachings on mercy and forgiveness and charity. He made Christianity into a kind of decadence. This argument reappears regularly which is why many buy into the decadent Roman Empire that fell from its basic values. People of the time sometimes ranted about it too. It is the standard bit in almost every culture where some look to some age when all was right and good and then things went wrong. Almost every time we have a chance to peer into that wonderful age of purity and goodness so many cultures praise we find out it never actually existed.

Gibbon was also just wrong. The Christian Roman Emperors were not merciful and forgiving and charitable. They were just as brutal as those who gave offerings to Jupiter. I don’t see anything suggesting that Scandinavia was different. Christianity offered a lot of advantages to the Norse elite. It opened up trade with other Christian rulers, got them access to clergy which gave them literate bureaucrats to manage their holdings, and served effectively as a way to build legitimacy as a ruler. While some may have converted for spiritual reasons it is more likely conversion was more commonly done for practical reasons.

[Autonomous]

I've traveled in Israel, neat to see all the archeology there, and in so many different places.  Egypt was more impressive, older sites, fascinating to see the Sphinx.  

One day I'd love to visit the sites in South Africa, the cradle of humankind, explore the Sterkfontein Caves, that's interesting history.

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why doesn’t art have these problems?

Well that is actually what contemporary art is about!  The entire point,  since Impressionism, is to question EXACTLY what art IS.   Does it "represent" reality or is it simply about human perception?   What happens when you put a urinal as a piece of art in an art museum?  

And of course, similarly, semiotics is finally breaking through.   The problem of religious postmodernism is finally starting to dominate theology, and we are losing members because they do not understand symbolism/ semiotics.

Today, an artist is likely to believe that all human creativity is one form or another is "ART".  They are studying the margins.  That would make science an "art"- an objective way of seeing the world.

And the Impressionists were studying human perception- so they were "scientists" in their own way.   And today we have pixels.  Do pixels correspond to reality?

Here is a Wikipedia - not too bad- 😜 reference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Marco Polo discovered unicorns in a land thousands of miles from his home!   Of course we now call these "unicorns" something else. 

Symbols are important.

THIS is an example of Marco Polo's UNICORN 

A fabulous book:

"Kant and the Platypus- Essays on Language and Cognition" by Umberto Eco- he is known for his novels but in real life is a professor of semiotics. 

Edited November 27, 2024 by Mfbnew

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I haven’t read anything that convinces me that Christianity led to a culture of forgiveness in Scandinavia following conversion. While I am glad many of the Norse pagan practices ended (lots of human sacrifice, possible rape murders, and other not so good rites) I don’t see the leaders suddenly becoming more merciful.

This sounds like the old argument Gibbon made from the other side about how he thought Christianity weakened the Roman Empire with its teachings on mercy and forgiveness and charity. He made Christianity into a kind of decadence. This argument reappears regularly which is why many buy into the decadent Roman Empire that fell from its basic values. People of the time sometimes ranted about it too. It is the standard bit in almost every culture where some look to some age when all was right and good and then things went wrong. Almost every time we have a chance to peer into that wonderful age of purity and goodness so many cultures praise we find out it never actually existed.

Gibbon was also just wrong. The Christian Roman Emperors were not merciful and forgiving and charitable. They were just as brutal as those who gave offerings to Jupiter. I don’t see anything suggesting that Scandinavia was different. Christianity offered a lot of advantages to the Norse elite. It opened up trade with other Christian rulers, got them access to clergy which gave them literate bureaucrats to manage their holdings, and served effectively as a way to build legitimacy as a ruler. While some may have converted for spiritual reasons it is more likely conversion was more commonly done for practical reasons.

But there was something of Christianity that remained in my environment that carried the light of Christ with it, and this awareness of Jesus as represented led me eventually to recognize the Restored Gospel. I don't recall having a Bible in the house as a child, but I would say Aesop's Fables, Just So Stores and Pinocchio were definitively contributing influences. Davy and Goliath less so, but I remember it as Christian for better or worse.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Well that is actually what contemporary art is about!  The entire point,  since Impressionism, is to question EXACTLY what art IS.   Does it "represent" reality or is it simply about human perception?   What happens when you put a urinal as a piece of art in an art museum?  

And of course, similarly, semiotics is finally breaking through.   The problem of religious postmodernism is finally starting to dominate theology, and we are losing members because they do not understand symbolism/ semiotics.

Here is a Wikipedia - not too bad- 😜 reference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Marco Polo discovered unicorns in a land thousands of miles from his home!   Of course we now call these "unicorns" something else. 

Symbols are important.

THIS is an example of Marco Polo's UNICORN 

I think art is a creative expression of various mental states. History, religion, science and technology have that in common with it, and many of the same purposes come to think of it. Perception, representation, desire, contemplation, (all the mental states), etc. are involved in all of them.