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

[Mfbnew]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

And there you go!!  THAT is the way life really happens!

It is the stories that teach us- not the alleged "scientific historical reality" we argue about here.   It is the STORIES that teach our hearts, while we dig in the dirt looking for a sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla" in "Reformed Egyptian".   Find THAT and people will flock back- uh- right?   Joseph in his youth was reported to be looking for buried treasure.  And metaphorically we are still doing that.

Some day we will either grow up or kill the church with these literalist beliefs.   WE MUST GROW UP and see language for what it is and is not.  

But the beauty of it all is that one can BE a literalist and the other a postmodernist and still love the church.   It's two language games not understanding the other view.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour 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.

Yes.  Modern American diplomats and politicians take that view currently, heaping scorn on anyone with an ounce of honor or integrity.  For them religion is indeed decadent and counterproductive.  What truly matters is power and game theory.  However, it is true that there have been times of relative peace and prosperity, places where people would prefer to be.  The notion that everything is always the same is nonsense.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Jordan Peterson quotes research showing that the Scandinavians have gone further in the spirit of DEI than any other culture, but it did not infact result in perfect equality -- women insisted on remaining in limited jobs and pursuits despite opportunities place in front of them.

Some communities do seem to continue to offer good order and meaningful lives, such as the Hutterites, Amish, and Latter-day Saints.  Others pursue zombie societies as they rush headlong to the bottom.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Russell saw Christianity and Marxism as dangerous due to their absolutist demands, which they would kill to enforce.  The history of both Marxism and European Christianity was one of war and mass executions -- in the millions.  One might respond that the history of Christianity was not at all "Christian."  One could also point out that the claim by Latter-day Saints to be righteous is belied by Mountain Meadows.  Thus, absent perfection, what sort of organizing principles can help provide a truly peaceful and righteous society?  The Latter-day Saint view seems to be that a religious organization is not enough in a pluralistic society:  One also needs to have an inspired political compact, such as the U.S. Constitution.  Of course, a herd of swine can easily turn and trample on all of that . . .  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Autonomous said:

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.

Yep.  Archeological data is gathered and evaluated scientifically, same as the crime scene analysis by trained professionals -- which can be presented in a court of law.  That is forensic evidence in action.  However, history is a more nuanced interpretation of the data.  History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.

[Autonomous]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep.  Archeological data is gathered and evaluated scientifically, same as the crime scene analysis by trained professionals -- which can be presented in a court of law.  That is forensic evidence in action.  However, history is a more nuanced interpretation of the data.  History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.

Just curious, how do Mormons "interpret" hominids, dinosaurs, and other pre-adamic cultures and artifacts?  Would an evolutionary biologist be welcomed into LDS circles?

[Mfbnew]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.

Please explain further.  How does anyone say anything about anything without some "interpretation"? What is a "fact"?  What IS- say, Mars?  It's a planet..... oops that's an interpretation... uh, it's a light in the sky .....   oops- is it a "light"?   What do you mean by "Sky"?   Does "sky" exist at night?  What happens to its "color" at night?  What IS Mars with no interpretations?  Is it still "red" if you are color blind?

When I say "Cat" does something somewhere meow?   Is "cat" a fact or an interpretation?

What kind of "Fact" is the concept of a mile?   Can we say how far away Mars is without a human- constructed concept of distance?   And then we have the problem of kilograms or miles or light years....

I FEEL that I cannot think of "Mars" without some variable human construction about human perceptions.

So what are "facts" WITHOUT being some kind of "description" and therefore an "interpretation".

Can you teach a child "what Mars is" without some kind of interpretation?

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One also needs to have an inspired political compact, such as the U.S. Constitution.

So is this belief an objective, factual natural "law" discovered by science?   What does "inspired" mean?    Do scientists see it that way?

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Just curious, how do Mormons "interpret" hominids, dinosaurs, and other pre-adamic cultures and artifacts?  Would an evolutionary biologist be welcomed into LDS circles?

Of course.

BYU of course has courses on science and biology!  The story of Adam and Eve can be seen as an allegory for every individual's spiritual "journey.

Quite honestly- and to be frank, your understanding of our beliefs are really poor,  I might say "cartoon-like" and I am very glad you are here to ask questions!   Welcome!

There's a lot of s....stuff out there on the internet that is.... uh.... let's just leave it at "inaccurate", and look at every belief you THINK we have.  

Seriously though - welcome, and we hope we can help you at least understand what we REALLY believe!  🙂

[Autonomous]

58 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Of course.

BYU of course has courses on science and biology!  The story of Adam and Eve can be seen as an allegory for every individual's spiritual "journey.

Quite honestly- and to be frank, your understanding of our beliefs are really poor,  I might say "cartoon-like" and I am very glad you are here to ask questions!   Welcome!

There's a lot of s....stuff out there on the internet that is.... uh.... let's just leave it at "inaccurate", and look at every belief you THINK we have.  

Seriously though - welcome, and we hope we can help you at least understand what we REALLY believe!  🙂

Awesome to hear.  

So how much is allegory?  

I have a Jewish friend who is athiest, but celebrates all the Jewish holidays, attends synagogue, wears the little beanie - the whole 9 yards as that's his family, his culture, his heritage.  Truth in the universal laws for health, work, value of community but non-literal for archeological  -  does not try to prove the flood happened etc.  Israel does have a few things from the Torah  - there is archeology there (dig in anyone's backyard in that country and you'll find stuff lol) but no literal beliefs in ... exaggerated accounts.  

 

Some Hindu friends - same thing - allegory,  not literal.  Stories were created to instill fear in enemies - try to convince neighbors you can walk on fire, can float in air, of giants and gurus  - ham it up, scare the neighbors, kids slowly realize what's really going on as they get older, but it all serves its purpose - hero's, inspiration to do this or that, good non-literal stories mixed with true virtues, true principles.  

Asop's fables  - fables, but true lessons.  

 

How many Mormons are allegorical, non-literal for it all?

[Mfbnew]

1 hour ago, Autonomous said:

Awesome to hear.  

So how much is allegory?  

I have a Jewish friend who is athiest, but celebrates all the Jewish holidays, attends synagogue, wears the little beanie - the whole 9 yards as that's his family, his culture, his heritage.  Truth in the universal laws for health, work, value of community but non-literal for archeological  -  does not try to prove the flood happened etc.  Israel does have a few things from the Torah  - there is archeology there (dig in anyone's backyard in that country and you'll find stuff lol) but no literal beliefs in ... exaggerated accounts.  

 

Some Hindu friends - same thing - allegory,  not literal.  Stories were created to instill fear in enemies - try to convince neighbors you can walk on fire, can float in air, of giants and gurus  - ham it up, scare the neighbors, kids slowly realize what's really going on as they get older, but it all serves its purpose - hero's, inspiration to do this or that, good non-literal stories mixed with true virtues, true principles.  

Asop's fables  - fables, but true lessons.  

 

How many Mormons are allegorical, non-literal for it all?

It's impossible to say, BUT the entire point is that both views can be believed without consequences.   In order to enter our temples, one must get a "Temple Recommend" after an interview with the bishop - with fixed questions which are the same in all wards- and there are no questions about how literally one takes the scriptures.

So one could see things completely literally while others might see it totally symbolically.   I am toward the symbolic view of those interpretation possibilities.

And we are no longer "Mormons"- we are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or simply The Church of Jesus Christ- THAT is the name I personally favor.

I am a former bishop- we are called to that position for a period of usually about 5 years, and called by the stake presidency after approval from Salt Lake City.

I have been on the Stake High Council, a Stake Auditor, High Priest's and Elder's Quorum President , and other callings.  I only bring this up to indicate that they have not thrown me out because of my views yet.   And I have taught these ideas openly with a lot of praise from some, and not so much from others.  .

So there IS no such thing as determining "how many Mormons" lean more toward symbolic views or literal views.  As long as one can answer the questions on the temple recommend interview - BEFORE GOD- truthfully and without reservation- and judged by the bishop-  one's progression through the church can continue, "before God, angels and witnesses."

Notice that the question itself which starts this thread ends with

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?.... Do you care?

Who would ask that question if there was no leeway to indicate that one does NOT care?

Who would admit that their views include the possibility that they do NOT take some scriptures literally?

Jesus himself- IN THE BIBLE- taught somewhere around 20 parables.   So wasn't Jesus himself one who preferred to teach in symbols?  

Or was he out there trying to find evidence of the flood?

Edited November 28, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Autonomous]

23 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

It's impossible to say, BUT the entire point is that both views can be believed without consequences.   In order to enter our temples, one must get a "Temple Recommend" after an interview with the bishop - with fixed questions which are the same in all wards- and there are no questions about how literally one takes the scriptures.

[/quote]

So, someone could drink coffee etc. every day, but be fine to enter the temple because no one is grilled if they "literally" do this or that?

23 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

So one could see things completely literally while others might see it totally symbolically.   I am toward the symbolic view of those interpretation possibilities.

[/quote]

What if one of the literal believers is counting on something like - having a church leader literally talking to God, and literally protecting them or something serious?  If some little kid doesn't go to the cops or something because they literally believe their church leader will be guided- miraculously- to know what's wrong - and help?  Literal beliefs can be vary damaging.  (Some kids at my home have been hurt from such beliefs)

23 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

And we are no longer "Mormons"- we are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or simply The Church of Jesus Christ- THAT is the name I personally favor.

There's a different "church of Jesus Christ" down our street - not sure you want to associate with everyone having that broad name. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ

Some scary organizations in the above list...

23 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

I am a former bishop- we are called to that position for a period of usually about 5 years, and called by the stake presidency after approval from Salt Lake City.

I have been on the Stake High Council, a Stake Auditor, High Priest's and Elder's Quorum President , and other callings.  I only bring this up to indicate that they have not thrown me out because of my views yet.   And I have taught these ideas openly with a lot of praise from some, and not so much from others.  .

My guess, "They" haven't thrown you out because they're not literalisists either  - but be careful, not cool to tell the little kids something like Santa isn't real.

23 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

So there IS no such thing as determining "how many Mormons" lean more toward symbolic views or literal views.  As long as one can answer the questions on the temple recommend interview - BEFORE GOD- truthfully and without reservation- and judged by the bishop-  one's progression through the church can continue, "before God, angels and witnesses."

So you believe in... male guy with white hair floating around?    Haha, you still have a bit of liberalism to ya - but hopefully at least some more universal version of a higher power?

23 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Notice that the question itself which starts this thread ends with

Who would ask that question if there was no leeway to indicate that one does NOT care?

Who would admit that their views include the possibility that they do NOT take some scriptures literally?

Jesus himself- IN THE BIBLE- taught somewhere around 20 parables.   So wasn't Jesus himself one who preferred to teach in symbols?  

Or was he out there trying to find evidence of the flood?

The NT Jesus guy is great, tossing over tables, pushing against organized religion  - killed by the church at the time, poor guy.  Sermon in the mountains  - outside in boats, in the hills  - that's where I spend my Sundays, with friends, a little fishing every now and then, shared food haha will stay away from those temples and money changers.  

 

Good to hear the spectrum,  just be careful what you teach those kids, they don't just believe Santa's real, they count on Santa for stuff they get really hurt over when things aren't "literal".

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Would an evolutionary biologist be welcomed into LDS circles?

An evolutionary psychologist was. One of my psych professors at BYU back in the late 70s, early 80s taught this. I heard he was later called as a Stake President. 

BYU has a dinosaur museum attached, apparently is one of the largest collections in the world. My husband loved going to it as a kid (his dad was a BYU psych professor). I was neighbors for a time with a BYU geology professor. While he got hassled by some members who had bought in a little to heavily with the then unfortunately dominant view against evolution in the Church (pushed by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R McConkie among others), the administration had him teaching old earth, etc.  

Same with the other relevant science classes.  While some (but hardly all) religion teachers might have at the time and even later taught against evolution, it was never the position of any church school nor an official position of the Church.

[Mfbnew]

11 hours ago, Autonomous said:

So, someone could drink coffee etc. every day, but be fine to enter the temple because no one is grilled if they "literally" do this or that?

What if one of the literal believers is counting on something like - having a church leader literally talking to God, and literally protecting them or something serious?  If some little kid doesn't go to the cops or something because they literally believe their church leader will be guided- miraculously- to know what's wrong - and help?  Literal beliefs can be vary damaging.  (Some kids at my home have been hurt from such beliefs)

There's a different "church of Jesus Christ" down our street - not sure you want to associate with everyone having that broad name. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ

Some scary organizations in the above list...

My guess, "They" haven't thrown you out because they're not literalisists either  - but be careful, not cool to tell the little kids something like Santa isn't real.

So you believe in... male guy with white hair floating around?    Haha, you still have a bit of liberalism to ya - but hopefully at least some more universal version of a higher power?

The NT Jesus guy is great, tossing over tables, pushing against organized religion  - killed by the church at the time, poor guy.  Sermon in the mountains  - outside in boats, in the hills  - that's where I spend my Sundays, with friends, a little fishing every now and then, shared food haha will stay away from those temples and money changers.  

 

Good to hear the spectrum,  just be careful what you teach those kids, they don't just believe Santa's real, they count on Santa for stuff they get really hurt over when things aren't "literal".

I thought you were here to actually learn something about our church, and obviously I was wrong.  

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Autonomous said:

So, someone could drink coffee etc. every day, but be fine to enter the temple because no one is grilled if they "literally" do this or that?

Is this rhetorical or an actual question?

You are confusing beliefs (internal behavior) with practices (external behavior).  We are a church that focuses on doing what is right.  We are more concerned with orthopraxis than orthodoxy outside of some pretty basic beliefs.  Even with the Articles of Faith, there are many ideas in them we are never tested on where we stand in the Church to see if we believe or how we believe them.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

So is this belief an objective, factual natural "law" discovered by science?   What does "inspired" mean?    Do scientists see it that way?

I had said "One also needs to have an inspired political compact, such as the U.S. Constitution."

The only value to an inspired Constitution is that, as a practical matter, it might mollify the yokels among us who want to create their own "special" understanding of "rights" and "nature."  Note that I bolded "might."  One constantly hopes that most citizens understand and enable that common approach to govt.  Unfortunately, most of them erroneously believe that a U.S. govt "of the people, by the people, and for the people" does not exist, and is perhaps the enemy.  They are unable to take the responsibility for their own self-governance.

This has nothing to do with discovering objective reality, but only with finding a practical modus vivendi which enables us to be a true community.  That is culture.

Meantime, it may well be that Western civilization is over, and that the sword of Damocles is about to drop.  Luckily, I won't be here to see it.  

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Please explain further.  How does anyone say anything about anything without some "interpretation"? What is a "fact"?  What IS- say, Mars?  It's a planet..... oops that's an interpretation... uh, it's a light in the sky .....   oops- is it a "light"?   What do you mean by "Sky"?   Does "sky" exist at night?  What happens to its "color" at night?  What IS Mars with no interpretations?  Is it still "red" if you are color blind?

When I say "Cat" does something somewhere meow?   Is "cat" a fact or an interpretation?

What kind of "Fact" is the concept of a mile?   Can we say how far away Mars is without a human- constructed concept of distance?   And then we have the problem of kilograms or miles or light years....

I FEEL that I cannot think of "Mars" without some variable human construction about human perceptions.

So what are "facts" WITHOUT being some kind of "description" and therefore an "interpretation".

Can you teach a child "what Mars is" without some kind of interpretation?

In a court of law, the jury gets to interpret the evidence presented, after listening to the closing arguments (interpretations) by the attorneys.  Historians look at the translated (interpreted) documents found by the archeologists, in the context of C14 and pottery seriation, in order to place a good sequence date on it.   The call to perfection in such endeavors is a fallacy.  We are dealing with practical, subjective aspects of reality -- in which many people place only interim (conditional) certainty.  After all, Ludwig is correct that words only mean what they are used to mean.  Nothing more profound than that.

That is why scholars prefer a phenomenological analysis of religion.  It isn't necessary to make absolute judgments about any given belief system.  That is why Thoms F. O'Dea and Jan Shipps each successfully used that approach to the study of Mormons.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/27/2024 at 2:32 PM, Autonomous said:

Just curious, how do Mormons "interpret" hominids, dinosaurs, and other pre-adamic cultures and artifacts?  Would an evolutionary biologist be welcomed into LDS circles?

Latter-day Saint leaders have had very different views on the first question, with scientists among the Brethren taking a more expansive view.  Meantime, virtually the entire biology faculty at BYU has been teaching evolutionary biology for many decades.

Some scholars take the view that the Creation & Garden Story in Genesis is not historical narrative, but rather a complete temple liturgy.  For those that don't understand that Gen 1 - 3 is "a temple story," check out this short video from Oxford scholar and former Anglican Bishop Tom Wright:  

 .

[The Nehor]

On 11/27/2024 at 2:01 PM, CV75 said:

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.

Cool, but not sure how it is relevant.

[The Nehor]

On 11/27/2024 at 2:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  Modern American diplomats and politicians take that view currently, heaping scorn on anyone with an ounce of honor or integrity.  For them religion is indeed decadent and counterproductive.  What truly matters is power and game theory.  However, it is true that there have been times of relative peace and prosperity, places where people would prefer to be.  The notion that everything is always the same is nonsense.

This doesn’t follow up or relate to anything I said so I assume you are just a hammer that sees everything as a nail.

On 11/27/2024 at 2:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Jordan Peterson quotes research showing that the Scandinavians have gone further in the spirit of DEI than any other culture, but it did not infact result in perfect equality -- women insisted on remaining in limited jobs and pursuits despite opportunities place in front of them.

Some communities do seem to continue to offer good order and meaningful lives, such as the Hutterites, Amish, and Latter-day Saints.  Others pursue zombie societies as they rush headlong to the bottom.

I talk about the practical reasons the Norse had to embrace Christianity and you respond to it by talking about DEI in modern Scandanavia? What? Also if it needs to be said Jordan Peterson’s conclusions are wrong. This is a well-studied phenomenon and he instead took raw data and ran to the wrong conclusion.

The theocratic communists are an example of “good order and meaningful lives”? I did not expect that appraisal from you but okay.

[Autonomous]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:59 AM, 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? 

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

 

I agree that the point of religion should be the study of what actions and practices lead to a purpose filled honorable life, to refine character - wisdom, courage, justice, temperance, acceptance of what is real, peace, resilience, autonomy, mindfulness, and gratitude (love the idea of Thanksgiving holiday)

I cannot however trust my own intuition, I no longer trust my heart (betrayal trauma - my heart deceived me, my feelings are not trustworthy).  I believe my feelings are based on wants, not reality.  I cannot trust someone based on feelings, I no longer try to help others based on feelings.  I know data is not 100% reliable do not believe anything is foolproof) - where I can find consensus between diverse independent groups, repeated examples of something - such as health, or happy families - especially if some thread of wellbeing is demonstrated through history (those who were on the "right" side of history)  those principles and data I find the most inspiring to follow.  

Library of Alexandria - inspiring to see those in the past who valued wisdom, study, knowledge, books.

The Code of Hammurabi - an eye for an eye - as it was written - seems brutal, but wow, justice.  If a builder does not build a firm foundation, they should be held accountable, the engineer should build everything as if their own life - the life of their own family was at stake.

Margaret Mead  "the first sign of civilization is a healed human femur," meaning a broken thigh bone that has healed, indicating someone cared for and protected an injured individual, allowing the bone to mend; essentially signifying the beginning of societal care and compassion as the foundation of civilization.

 

That precious group of people who study, who seek justice, who care for the wounded - that's the thread that's lasted, why humans have not killed themselves off, why our population has grown and we have not become extinct.  Principles that unite - no racism, no sexism, by the people for the people I do love - no heirarchy, each vote counted equally, those are the principles I have seen work through history that still - impferfectly - but are the best there are.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/28/2024 at 8:37 PM, The Nehor said:

This doesn’t follow up or relate to anything I said so I assume you are just a hammer that sees everything as a nail.

Your view is characteristically baneful, and you project a great deal, but that is just who you are, Nehor.

On 11/28/2024 at 8:37 PM, The Nehor said:

I talk about the practical reasons the Norse had to embrace Christianity and you respond to it by talking about DEI in modern Scandanavia? What? Also if it needs to be said Jordan Peterson’s conclusions are wrong. This is a well-studied phenomenon and he instead took raw data and ran to the wrong conclusion.

The stats don't lie, and the conclusion Peterson reaches is simply there in the govt statistics for all to see.  It doesn't take a genius to understand how wrong the woke nonsense in Sweden has been -- even if well-intentioned.  Even Denmark is now rejecting their previous high hopes for wokeism.  The demographic crash taking place in Norway is another indicator.

On 11/28/2024 at 8:37 PM, The Nehor said:

The theocratic communists are an example of “good order and meaningful lives”? I did not expect that appraisal from you but okay.

While it is true that Marxism is a religion, and that some former Soviets hanker for their will-ordered past, communism has never been practiced in Russia, China, or other self-proclaimed Marxist country.  Karl Marx and his successors dangled the idea of communism in front of the masses in order to gain obedience to the dictatorship of the proletariat.  However, that future utopian communism (automatic harmony) was always as elusive as the Christian millennium.

True communism has been successfully practiced by several groups in history, the best example today is the Basque Mondragón.   https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/ .

[CV75]

On 11/28/2024 at 10:21 PM, The Nehor said:

Cool, but not sure how it is relevant.

There were enough principles of Christianity trailing in my culture to lead to my conversion. Christ-centered mercy, forgiveness and charity were some of them, though in my immediate family microcosm, these principles were put forth as more secular values since my parents were lapsed Catholic (father) and Presbyterian (mother).

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your view is characteristically baneful, and you project a great deal, but that is just who you are, Nehor.

So you don’t see how it related either then?

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The stats don't lie, and the conclusion Peterson reaches is simply there in the govt statistics for all to see.  It doesn't take a genius to understand how wrong the woke nonsense in Sweden has been -- even if well-intentioned.  Even Denmark is now rejecting their previous high hopes for wokeism.  The demographic crash taking place in Norway is another indicator.

Jordan Peterson isn’t relaying the stats. He is interpreting them. He is doing so badly. There are people who study these things in depth and they have good solid theories as to why and how these stats came to be and are testing and honing them. Then a professional weirdo operating on vague intuition and a few numbers he read off a paper to explain how obvious it all is. He is a feel-good guru pretending to be an academic researcher. Good at the former but steps out of his lane a lot. Of course if he is a prophet who tells people what they want to hear you can make money off it.

Also that is a very bad summary of what is going on in Scandinavia.

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While it is true that Marxism is a religion, and that some former Soviets hanker for their will-ordered past, communism has never been practiced in Russia, China, or other self-proclaimed Marxist country.  Karl Marx and his successors dangled the idea of communism in front of the masses in order to gain obedience to the dictatorship of the proletariat.  However, that future utopian communism (automatic harmony) was always as elusive as the Christian millennium.

True communism has been successfully practiced by several groups in history, the best example today is the Basque Mondragón.   https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/ .

Marxism is not a religion and Mondragon is not communism.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Jordan Peterson isn’t relaying the stats. He is interpreting them. He is doing so badly. There are people who study these things in depth and they have good solid theories as to why and how these stats came to be and are testing and honing them. Then a professional weirdo operating on vague intuition and a few numbers he read off a paper to explain how obvious it all is. He is a feel-good guru pretending to be an academic researcher. Good at the former but steps out of his lane a lot. Of course if he is a prophet who tells people what they want to hear you can make money off it.

Also that is a very bad summary of what is going on in Scandinavia.

Peterson is criticized primarily by political partisans who misunderstand the nature of academic debate.  Indeed, those who hate him the most are deeply threatened by the questions he raises about the validity of their woke assumptions.  The high nabobs or society are the most frightened by his discomfiting comments and systematic analyses.  The shift in the debate is palpable.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Marxism is not a religion and Mondragon is not communism.

That's like saying that Lysenkoism is scientific, and that Mendelian genetics is religious.  The third Earl of Russell thought Marxism to be a religion.  Why?  Perhaps because it has strong devotees who read the sacred texts from their prophets (Marx, Engles, Lenin, Mao), a belief system focused on achieving a utopian future -- a form of salvation from the evil capitalist social order, and finally with automatic harmony in a communist millennium.

Milovan Djilas, the top theoretician in the Yugoslav Communist Party, defined Marxism best in his The New Class (Praeger).

Edited December 1, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

[Teancum]

On 11/19/2024 at 8:52 PM, smac97 said:

Does extra-biblical evidence confirming the historicity of some figures referenced in The Bible increase your religious faith in that book?  Decrease it?

Thanks,

-Smac

For met at least, it means that some of the people talked about in the Bible actually existed. So it would help in making the book more valid in some aspects.  But it does not make it divine. But it gives a big one up on the Book of Mormon which has no support that the people or places (other than Jerusalem) existed at all.