klutedavid
Well-Known Member
Sun God of Egypt.Who Ra?
In the afterlife you will be dwelling with the baboons, that is the curse of Ra.
Upvote
0
Sun God of Egypt.Who Ra?
I too find these discoveries fascinating. And verifying the Biblical accounts of Hebrew history does give some "life" to the books.
I guess I can see how it advances "Christian apologetics" a little bit, in the face of people who think the Bible is a complete fabrication like Lord of the Rings or something.
Well Ana, me, most people here were probably already aware that many Biblical characters and settings were real.... if that's the case, then it sounds like you and Ana the 1st should have a little epistemic talk among yourselves, one that the rest of us could be privy to, preferably.
Well Ana, me, most people here were probably already aware that many Biblical characters and settings were real.
Most of the kings enumerated in Kings. Egypt. Sinai. The prophets were probably real people, or may as well have been. Galilee, Jerusalem, and probably 50 other named towns. I think Jesus was a real person, as do most non Christians. I could go on and on.And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically? Personally, I don't "know," so I'm asking you skeptical types what your estimation is on these kinds of things.
And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically? Personally, I don't "know," so I'm asking you skeptical types what your estimation is on these kinds of things.
How about "those for which extra-biblical evidence exists".
Most of the kings enumerated in Kings. Egypt. Sinai. The prophets were probably real people, or may as well have been. Galilee, Jerusalem, and probably 50 other named towns. I think Jesus was a real person, as do most non Christians. I could go on and on.
Mythic figures are probably Adam and Eve and immediate offspring, Job, maybe the three wise men / kings, etc.....
It seems to me that major political figures like kings would have been recorded in histories, generally known among the population, and are said by the book to exist near in time to when the book was estimated to have been written. Seems hard to to fake-in a king into the cultural memory so quickly.Why would you think that David or Solomon existed? By the paltry archaeological evidence we think we have, it's not a done deal.
It seems to me that major political figures like kings would have been recorded in histories, generally known among the population, and are said to exist near in time to when the relevant book was written. Seems hard to to fake-in a king into the cultural memory so quickly.
...yeah, see, that's the problem, isn't it?
Entropy, History and Archaeology (even Paleontology) aren't exactly the best bed-fellows. Then, if we throw in honest recognition of all the fault-lines that are present within much of human epistemology and metaphysics, we'll realize that we're all in for a doozey in trying to figure out this big ol' "God Question." ... all things considered,
when you look at the Bible, I'm not surprised that you and other atheists see nothing but donkey-doo.
Well, what a quandry! I guess we'll just have to say that we're at epistemic logger-heads then.I don't see it as a problem.
That's great to know, Ana. Thanks for being transparent with us about your belief system.It's a bit of a non-question for me at this point.
Because, maybe I've seen a lot of commonality in the thinking that takes place among you atheists ????? I mean, granted, I don't want to stereotype you and say something crass and cliche like, "Atheists, you all look alike." But, you'll have to excuse me in that all through college and much of time here on CF, the atheists and skeptics I have typically run into are quite often of the Nietzschean sort, and being that I have a Pascalian mind-set, I have little patience for that form of atheistic expression.I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to continually try to characterize how I or anyone else sees the bible.
I'm sorry to step on your toe, but usually, you atheists just come right out and tell us..............You can always just ask if you want to know...you don't have to guess.
Well, what a quandry! I guess we'll just have to say that we're at epistemic logger-heads then.
That's great to know, Ana. Thanks for being transparent with us about your belief system.
Because, maybe I've seen a lot of commonality in the thinking that takes place among you atheists ????? I mean, granted, I don't want to stereotype you and say something crass and cliche like, "Atheists, you all look alike." But, you'll have to excuse me in that all through college and much of time here on CF, the atheists and skeptics I have typically run into are quite often of the Nietzschean sort, and being that I have a Pascalian mind-set, I have little patience for that form of atheistic expression.
I'm sorry to step on your toe, but usually, you atheists just come right out and tell us..............
Ok. So when you think of God,
do you want evidence of the kind and given in the way that He said He'd provide it
OR do you just want evidence of the kind, and presented in the way, that, like Nietzsche, you want it?
It creates a refusal to place one's self into the shoes of another person and to think about that other, opposing position in a more empathic, educated way. Am I wrong?What's the problem that you think it creates?
...and that's why your here, then? Do you have genuine questions about the Christian faith, or is it just posturing? See? I'm asking a question rather than assuming your ....*ahem*.....motive.I understand that the "god question" might be a "doozy" for you...but it's not an issue that I even think about outside of these types of conversations.
Didn't you say that you're a Nihilist here a while back? Or am I getting you confused with several of the other atheists here?And what exactly have I said here that led you to conclude that I'm the Nietzschean sort of atheist?
...well, Thank God you're here to hold us accountable for daring to resort to an attempt to understand fuzzy-fied, ancient Jewish thought, Ana!I don't think of god. Really, the entire concept is something that I really only approach when believers try to give their vague, fuzzy, and often illogical descriptions of what they believe.
The first part of your notion here I can agree with; but it's the second that I think is a non-sequitur.As such, god remains an incomplete idea, that's more or less a stand-in explanation used to justify other beliefs of the faithful.
Man, you really haven't been around here enough lately, Ana. Ask any of these other folks around here. They'll tell you that that conceptual train has moved on for me, long ago.This is already a loaded question. You haven't even established the existence of a god yet...haven't provided an argument for one...and you're jumping to assumptions about what "he said he'd provide".
No, it was Kierkegaardian, even Pascalian. Do you know the difference?I don't see anything Nietzschean about that lol. I asked you what evidence would disprove your christian beliefs in your opinion....was your reply therefore, Nietzschean?
It creates a refusal to place one's self into the shoes of another person and to think about that other, opposing position in a more empathic, educated way. Am I wrong?
...and that's why your here, then? Do you have genuine questions about the Christian faith, or is it just posturing? See?
Didn't you say that you're a Nihilist here a while back? Or am I getting you confused with several of the other atheists here?
...well, Thank God you're here to hold us accountable for daring to resort to an attempt to understand fuzzy-fied, ancient Jewish thought, Ana!
The first part of your notion here I can agree with; but it's the second that I think is a non-sequitur.
Man, you really haven't been around here enough lately, Ana. Ask any of these other folks around here. They'll tell you that that conceptual train has moved on for me, long ago.
No, it was Kierkegaardian, even Pascalian. Do you know the difference?
...that's not quite what I meant by the refusal. What I meant to convey what that you atheists often don't seem to want to take up the opportunity to engage another person's point of view in full and try to understand where the other person is coming from. Of course, I understand that a number of Christians are exactly the same way.Yeah...you said...
"And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically?"
I replied...
"How about "those for which extra-biblical evidence exists".
To which you said...
"...yeah, see, that's the problem, isn't it?"
Which I responded in the negative to. It seems rather obvious that biblical figures with extra biblical evidence for their existence can reasonably be believed in having existed. You think that creates a "problem"....which you're now describing as...
"A refusal to put oneself in another's shoes, empathy, and whatever." I'm paraphrasing obviously, but it's hard to see how this statement follows from the other. I clearly understand that people want the existence of these historical figures to be evidence of other historical figures...but they aren't.
Ok. So you're not posturing then?No...if I did, I'd take those questions to the "exploring christianity" section.
Alright. So then, which philosophical figures are central to your thinking about life and religion?It definitely wasn't me.
That's good to know, because you many times come off as being assured of your conclusions. I'm sure that people will say "tu qoque" to me in turn on that note, but I'm more than willing to take a step back on some point or two and relearn some aspect under discussion of others will do some work to present gaps in my knowledge.I'm offering my perspective...not stating a claim to facts.
I'm not sure how quite to take that...I'll just assume that you meant it in the most charitable way possible.Perhaps then it's time for you to move along with it.
It might matter, but since you say you're not a Nietzschean, I'm reconsidering my approach as to how to discuss things with you.Does it matter? Are we discussing Kierkegaard or Pascal?
Yes, I think there are a number of us who are a little miffed by the unnecessary closing of the Philosophy section at CF, especially since I prefer the Lightning Rod approach when delving into various skeptical issues, even abrasively couched articulations of those issues which are presented by atheists. Besides, for the life of me, I'm not sure why anyone would be convinced by atheist books as to some form of rationalization that there's no Jesus, Lord and Savior of the World. But, this isn't a perfect world, so we don't have the Philosophy Section to romp around it. There is the Kitchen Sink, though.I miss the philosophy section too....but until it's reopened, this is apologetics. (Ironically, it was closed by an abundance of apologetic conversations)
I'm always curious about what those who believe these archeological finds are significant are thinking?
Claims about gods, miracles, and events cannot be proven with the discovery of buildings and caskets. Does the existence of the pyramids and sarcophagi of pharaohs prove ancient Egyptian religious beliefs true?
Of course not.
...that's not quite what I meant by the refusal. What I meant to convey what that you atheists often don't seem to want to take up the opportunity to engage another person's point of view in full and try to understand where the other person is coming from. Of course, I understand that a number of Christians are exactly the same way.
Ok. So you're not posturing then?
Alright. So then, which philosophical figures are central to your thinking about life and religion?
That's good to know, because you many times come off as being assured of your conclusions. I'm sure that people will say "tu qoque" to me in turn on that note, but I'm more than willing to take a step back on some point or two and relearn some aspect under discussion of others will do some work to present gaps in my knowledge.
I'm not sure how quite to take that...I'll just assume that you meant it in the most charitable way possible.
It might matter, but since you say you're not a Nietzschean, I'm reconsidering my approach as to how to discuss things with you.
Besides, for the life of me, I'm not sure why anyone would be convinced by atheist books as to some form of rationalization that there's no Jesus, Lord and Savior of the World.
Did the Egyptian gods claim to be actual people in the real world? Of course not.
That's the difference.
What difference do you think that makes?