Timeline for Can science or history be used to examine religions claims despite it being a naturalist enterprise that denies the existence of the supernatural?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21 at 1:36 | comment | added | armand | @ScottRowe also no one nowadays claims Oedipus or Electra are actual historical figures. The same isn't true for Jesus, which makes the comparison between the Gospels and Greek myths in 2024 completely pointless. | |
| Sep 20 at 16:34 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Nonduality, where there is no one to worship. A bridge too far for most, I think. | |
| Sep 20 at 16:32 | comment | added | Rushi | @ScottRowe Worship is a bizarre fixation of the monotheistic (socalled) religions. 1st they say we're better than others because our one-n-only God is the only guy. Then they kill each other over the identity (or even the name?!) of their one-n-only. And then monotheism is just a poor half way house to monism — ie non-duality. (Do you know how God translates when the bible is translated to Arabic?? Allah!! Heh! You wouldn't believe it if you talked to an evangelical who claims Islam is Satan worship) | |
| Sep 20 at 16:26 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | @Rushi no one has proposed worshipping Sophocles or Oedipus (or Freud for that matter) as best I know. What you do with your myths matters. Compelling others to believe is pretty much out. It seems that you argue for an 'acceptable' interpretation which many would find to be a conclusive defeat? (they would be compelled to disbelieve) | |
| Sep 19 at 22:35 | comment | added | armand | @Rushi which enters straight into the domain of fiction. The rest is pseudo psychological woo. | |
| Sep 19 at 8:50 | comment | added | Rushi | Just to be clear: myth is not fact. Myth is not fiction. Myth is Myth an allegorical story with a down to earth practical didactic purpose. | |
| Sep 19 at 8:48 | comment | added | Rushi | It's true that the NT commitment to the historicity of Jesus is rather a fixation. I regard as the exception than the rule. At the other extreme we have God made the world in 7 days; and on the first day he made the sun etc. I don't see how anyone even the most staunch literalist, can read that in any other than a metaphorical manner. To which I'd add Abraham, Noah, Lot, Job, Jonah... | |
| Sep 19 at 8:35 | comment | added | armand | @Rushi I addressed the fact that the bible can be seen as fiction, and how it makes any historical refutal of its content pointless. I don't see the point of your comment. History as it is made in academia can address the bible myths only in so far as they claim to be facts. And the new testament clearly does, in part. Jesus is claimed to be a real historical figure after all. But part of it can of course be seen as fiction. So there is no point in arguing that if we don't see it as factual, if we see it as metaphors or archetypes or wathever then it can't be refutted by historians. | |
| Sep 19 at 8:20 | comment | added | Rushi | As to killing children, it sounds way more interesting (to me at least) to compare the striking parallels of the Herod killing children story with the Kamsa killing all children to kill Krishna in the Mahabharata. The archetype seems far more significant than the facts | |
| Sep 19 at 8:14 | comment | added | Rushi | Its bizarre to make a judgement of the Bible's statements of the structure and timeline of the world as wrong (or right) rather than metaphorical. As a counterexample: We don't judge the play of Sophocles on Oedipus as historically accurate or inaccurate when it serves as the founding pillar one of the most influential psychological theories of the 20th century. We take it rather as the graphic description of an archetype. We can of course dispute the construction but on psychology grounds not facticity grounds | |
| Sep 19 at 7:56 | history | edited | armand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 298 characters in body
|
| Sep 19 at 7:51 | history | answered | armand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |