Religous debates and questions [2]

I bought Ocean Spray at the grocery store today. I wonder if there's a little bit of Dave and Hillbilly in me now.

Mrs Figg wrote:cranberries are excellent for the pee pee tubes. stops you getting cistitis. They are probably alkaline so stops the acid wee thing. its helpful if you drink a lot of coffee and your wee goes acid.

Proanthocyanidins at your service, ma'am!

  

I wonder if there's a little bit of Dave and Hillbilly in me now- Eldo

Given what I tend to deposit in Daves fields on the way home from the pub thats the least of your worries Eldo

No wonder I've been feeling more crabbit lately.

toxic sludge

Eldorion wrote:I bought Ocean Spray at the grocery store today.  I wonder if there's a little bit of Dave and Hillbilly in me now.

 

Quite unbelievable that two of the few yanks on this forum would have the same profession, as it is not a very common one. I may have to suspend all other discussions to talk shop with David. To hell with proselytizing, you guys can burn, I can maybe learn something from Dave that will help me make a buck.

David H-Excellent job representing the fruit. The marsh I work at started out OS, then switched in the rough patch in the early 00's. I've always been true blue, and am in fact looking for 2 acres of B pool delivery rights to purchase for my own place. Do not know any growers from the northwest, although this year I had a chance to meet some Chilean growers, who said their growing climate is very similar to yours. I've got a lot of things I'd love to talk about, but I hate to bore everyone else to death. Let me know if you'd be willing to chat sometime.

Eldo-Thanks for your support of our industry. Also, glad I can contribute to the discussion. Concerning your question about how literal people of the first century took their teaching (either by letters or oral tradition), I'm afraid I cannot speak intelligently about it. I will defer to Petty, as his description of Jewish society under roman rule is very accurate. I do not argue with most of what he has so eloquently put down concerning that era, but I do dispute his conclusions and where he deviates into his assumptions. I will get into those eventually.

One thing that Petty did not mention was the division of the Jewish people regarding Hellenization after the conquering by Alexander the Great, and subsequent rule by the Ptolemies and Seleucids. The atrocities committed during this time had a very heavy influence on how the Jews felt about Roman rule, but that will be quite a lengthy post.

Depends how seriously you take your cranberries-Halfwise
Very seriously, and if David caught Petty in his fields, there would definitely be a "come to Jesus" moment for the crabbit one.

I'm still grinding petty. Do you consider Daniel 8 to be accurate prophesy about the coming of Alexander the Great, his defeat of Medo-Persia, and the subsequent rule of his four generals? I'm assuming you are familiar with it, but if not, let me know and I can fill you in.

Hello Figgs.

Would the lot of you think I'm crazy if the real reason I converted was the day I found the crying image of Mary on the side of a cranberry? Not saying it's true, but you know, nothing says God couldn't speak to me through the holy fruit.

We may speak a little loosely about vegetables here - but go easy on fruit, please.

Orwell wrote:We may speak a little loosely about vegetables here - but go easy on fruit, please.

No problem, Orwell. I've got your vegetables right here!  

Hillbilly wrote:  Let me know if you'd be willing to chat sometime.

Happy to!   I just sent you a PM.

Hillbilly wrote:Very seriously, and if David caught Petty in his fields, there would definitely be a "come to Jesus" moment for the crabbit one.

You testify, Brother!  

Hillbilly wrote:One thing that Petty did not mention was the division of the Jewish people regarding Hellenization after the conquering by Alexander the Great, and subsequent rule by the Ptolemies and Seleucids. The atrocities committed during this time had a very heavy influence on how the Jews felt about Roman rule, but that will be quite a lengthy post....Do you consider Daniel 8 to be accurate prophesy about the coming of Alexander the Great, his defeat of Medo-Persia, and the subsequent rule of his four generals? I'm assuming you are familiar with it, but if not, let me know and I can fill you in.

If you ever feel so moved, expound away. Length never stopped Petty, and we were a very appreciative audience.

Just read up on Daniel (clearly I have pressing things I need to get done, which tends to drive me to do anything else).  I feel I need to make my source clear: I've mentioned Asimov's Guide to the Bible which I have by happenstance, so am not claiming it's the best of sources.  But it is clearly written, and his particular interest is the Bible as a historical document.

He opens the discussion of Daniel by noting that though he is considered one of the great prophets, his book is not classed among the prophets in the Jewish canon, but among the writings; a later collection.  The last of the prophetic canon is Jonah, which is dated to 160 BC, meaning that Daniel - though purportedly attributed to a man who predates Jonah - was most likely composed afterwards by another author(s).  Note that Alexander is about 300 BC while 160 BC is in the Seleucid era.

Chapters 1-7 are written in Aramaic, but starting from chapter 8 it switches to Hebrew.  Asimov follows most scholars in attributing this to being resistance literature, so written in Hebrew to make it less visible to the authorities than to the target audience - for Hebrew was a 'studied' language in later time with Aramaic being the colloquial.

It is full of anachronisms (mainly in spelling of names such as substituting the second 'n' for 'r' in Nebuchad-r/n-ezzar) that would make sense in the later rather than the earlier era.  The writer also writes of only two Babylonian Kings during the time of Daniel, when in fact there were four...and Belshazzar was only a powerful regent of a do-nothing king 20 years after Nebuchadnezzar's death, not a son.  It seems historical memory conflated 4 into 2.

The earlier prophets make no such mistakes, as they were indeed written during their own times.

Anyway, whether one chooses to accept it or not, Biblical scholarship tends to consider Daniel as being written during the Seleucid period, and the prophecies are simply disguised resistance literature against the current rulers.  It is possible that the book of Daniel played a part in the Hebrew rebellion of 168 BC.

What Halfwise said  

Turns out Asimov is approximate with his dates (I never claimed it was a great reference) but Wikipedia pins down the composition of the Seleucid prophecies with some accuracy.

"The crisis which the author of Daniel addresses is the destruction of the altar in Jerusalem in 167 BCE (first introduced in chapter 8:11): the daily offering which used to take place twice a day, at morning and evening, stopped, and the phrase "evenings and mornings" recurs through the following chapters as a reminder of the missed sacrifices.[28] But whereas the events leading up to the sacking of the Temple in 167 and the immediate aftermath are remarkably accurate (chapter 11:21–29), the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44–45) is totally inaccurate (he died in Persia).[29] The conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem.[30]"

I leave the reference numbers in to show why I'd take this over Asimov, who seems to have quoted the year 160 BC as just a round number pulled from memory. Being able to date the composition of that particular chapter to between 164-167 BC is a remarkable bit of scholarship, somebody must have felt good when they worked that one out.

Well, I'm glad you all liked the Dawkins video. I stumbled over it completely by chance.

What a completely fascinating man.

I'll offer up another view on religion then, though this one might not lead to the same amount of fascination or discussion.



It's a beautiful song and probably a healthy view of the world. Though I do wonder if "I don't believe" isn't a kind of mantra of sorts.

There is a lot of evidence that I believe is sound and points to an earlier writing of Daniel (6th century BC). I'm deciding if it is easier for me to condense it from my sources and write a long post, or find reliable websites that will do a better job of explaining. I am currently looking through websites, and believe it or not, there are a lot of so called Christian websites that are nothing more than hucksters trying to make a buck off the weak. If I'm going to push a lot of fabricated bull crap on you, I will do my best to make sure it is of the utmost quality.

On the quick, the division of the Jews about the influence of Hellenism is similar to the debate you see waged today among Christians. There is considerable argument about how much we should let the world influence us, or more accurately, how much we should be a part of the secular world. For example, the Mennonites have often been persecuted (primarily in Germany and Russia, but also here) for their refusal to participate in the military. Some Christians would look down on me for engaging atheists on a website, and still others would be on the other extreme, saying that Christianity gives us freedom to do anything we want (and ask for forgiveness later, by the way).

Hillbilly wrote:On the quick, the division of the Jews about the influence of Hellenism is similar to the debate you see waged today among Christians. There is considerable argument about how much we should let the world influence us, or more accurately, how much we should be a part of the secular world. For example, the Mennonites have often been persecuted (primarily in Germany and Russia, but also here) for their refusal to participate in the military. Some Christians would look down on me for engaging atheists on a website, and still others would be on the other extreme, saying that Christianity gives us freedom to do anything we want (and ask for forgiveness later, by the way).

It's always struck me as more than a little sad how much energy some Christians spend trying to determine who else is or isn't a Christian, and what they need to do to fix it. In my book the best Christians are the ones who put energy into doing God's work, rather than telling others how they should do God's work.  
(But that's just me, and who am I to judge? )

That's just how we humans are about everything, isn't it? The only thing we know for sure is that we/I am right and you are wrong.

Amarië wrote:That's just how we humans are about everything, isn't it? The only thing we know for sure is that we/I am right and you are wrong.

What Amarie said.


(At least, not so much Amarie, but me).

Peace Corps, West Africa. I had gone to a retreat with a group of young missionaries from the hospital in my region - don't remember where it was but it was beautiful (and they had one hell of a cook). Anyway, we were discussing things, no I can't remember what the purpose of the whole thing was but we were discussing things, and one of the older women there was just livid about the humanists. Said couldn't we do something about these people who come here, they do charitable work, but they're humanists. Oh she was steamed. The priest looked at her dispassionately: "If they're doing God's work, who cares if they don't realize it - they're still doing God's work."

Well, you're doing God's work, Hillbilly, whether WE realize it or not. And I think you can't have faith in your faith, as it were, unless it's well tested. You've got some very unique minds here to test it against....though it seems from comments like 'pushing quality fabricated bullcrap on us' that you've already put yourself through the wringer and can put up a strong challenge in defense of faith.

Anyway, the Battle of Opposing Piles of Bullcrap should prove at least as interesting as mudwrestling, and perhaps more enlightening.

Those are some of the kindest words ever said to me Halfy. There were two main reasons that I was reluctant to post here:

1. It was obvious that most people had made up their minds about what Christians are like. I can take the criticism, but what's the point of participating if you can't influence.

2. I simply don't have the time to respond to appropriately.

Well, I have this week off from my full time job (I still have to take care of my own place though). Besides that, everyone has been very patient, telling me to take my time in responding. As far as my first concern, the lot of you have been nothing but friendly and open to discussion. I must begrudgingly admit I kind of like it here.

I hope by now you can tell that I can take a punch. Feel free to joke or question, either me or the latest happenings as it relates to Christianity. Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau!

Hi Hillbilly.  

I sometimes wonder where faith comes from, I went to a Catholic school taught by nuns, they were tough and just seemed to get on with it, I asked one of them where did faith come from as when I was a kid I assumed you got hit by it in a flash like in the stories, I never got the flash and I was a bit worried and peeved. i thought I was missing the faith chip in my brain. Later in life I mourned its loss, I felt that if I asked for faith somehow I would be 'given' it, and then I thought maybe I was too impure too cynical to believe. I felt bad that I wasnt like the kids in Fatima who saw visions, that I wasnt pure enough. I guess I have always wanted to know what faith felt like and was envious of those who could feel it. To see the old folk kneeling in prayer with humility is almost like a rebuke, of 'you are not worthy'. Now I just accept it, I try to do a good deed every day, and sometimes I am a complete shit and fail miserably.

Interesting point of view Figgy. I also don't have faith but I have never felt the need. I like to think (and I am sure it would be disputed) that I am a very logical, analytical person. To me, there is no need to have faith in something like a god or an afterlife etc. My logical(?) brain says there is no reason for a god to be and there is no argument I have ever heard that disputes that.

It also says that afterlife may be a possibility but not heaven/hell type afterlife. Energy is something that gets transferred, never destroyed or created so the energy from a human must go somewhere so therefore it is possible that could be in the form of a spirit of some kind that sometimes just dissipates and sometimes stays coherent... maybe some instinctual thing that remains like a desire to live. Apparitions and ghostly things seem to come up too often and to people I know well enough to know they are not making it up. Could be anything really but I haven't ruled out the possibility.

I'm rambling at the moment. Maybe I will re-post later when my logical(?) brain is being a little more cohesive!

halfwise wrote:Peace Corps, West Africa.  I had gone to a retreat with a group of young missionaries from the hospital in my region - don't remember where it was but it was beautiful (and they had one hell of a cook).  Anyway, we were discussing things, no I can't remember what the purpose of the whole thing was but we were discussing things, and one of the older women there was just livid about the humanists.  Said couldn't we do something about these people who come here, they do charitable work, but they're humanists.  Oh she was steamed.  The priest looked at her dispassionately: "If they're doing God's work, who cares if they don't realize it - they're still doing God's work."

That's a really good story, Halfy! That reminds me so much of my great aunt who ran a mission school in rural India for something like 30 years with a vacation in the middle for WWII.

She wasn't a preacher or proselytizer, she just believed that the future of the world lay in teaching ordinary people to read and to think for themselves (this was in the time of Gandhi).

She had a powerful faith in God and a respect tempered with healthy mistrust for the human institutions of the church. Looking back, I'd say she had a significant influence on me.