sleeper;1388381 wrote:Oh please clarify. I'd love to read about the history of the world through the eyes of a believer. Go on.
Historically, pre-dating the era of Christ's alleged existence on earth, the Semitic people had already developed a relatively unique status symbol within their culture, which tied one's social standing directly to his ability to accurately recite history. Coupled with the pervasiveness of Hellenism within the Semitic peoples, particularly in the region of Coele-Syria (modern Palestine-ish region), as well as the phraseology actually used in biblical texts implying it to be historical narrative instead of fictional stories or written imperatives.
Given the timing of them, there would have been a wide-spread enough record of the events of the time, as well as empirically observed testimonies, that during the documented growth of the church within the first century, it would have been overwhelmingly easy to use empirical facts to put the kabash on any of the statements that fueled it. Instead, we find other groups of people writing about it as if it were, at the very least, perceived to be true during its own time (Seutonius and Tacitus are two Roman historians that come readily to mind, though I recall there are others as well).
Even one of the texts eventually adopted into the Canon was written in the form of a social study, starting with the following:
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have come to pass among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you [...] so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
Now, could this have been a lie? Sure. However, it would not have been at all an uncommon behavior for Hellenized people in that region, particularly ones who were educated in the Greek tradition. As well, defeaters would have been relatively easy to bring up by contemporaries.
The distinction between the Judeo-Christian texts as opposed to others is that it technically isn't written as an imperative, pretty much the whole way through. Not once does it actually say that people are supposed to do anything. It might say that God told a particular group to do something or not do something, and we can try to figure out if that applies elsewhere, but it isn't written in such a way that it readily reads to control anyone, so I don't see much motivation for a big cover-up conspiracy used to control the masses, let alone the other instances mentioned above.
Now, if you're wanting to talk about some of the things taking place in the Old Testament, I'd look to the other people groups who seem to substantiate certain events in their ancient texts. Now, this does not that mean I think they are 100% literally accurate. The Hebrew people from that era seemed, even in other historical narratives, to embellish stories to a point. So, for discussions on things like the origin of the world, the flood, and some of the other oddities (the sun never going down over a battle fought by Hebrew patriarch Joshua), there is some leeway, I think, when it comes to literal interpretation. However, as they are written as historical narratives in the ancient Hebrew tradition, they would not be completely allegorical, either. The truth, it seems, lies somewhere in between.
There is more, but I doubt you're still reading, and I don't completely blame you. I didn't develop my worldview with just the information in a long post, or even with the information contained in a single book. Not really sure when I actually even adopted a Judeo-Christian worldview, as it just sort of happened in small increments as I read and wrote and discussed and asked questions over the course of several years.
sleeper;1388383 wrote:What more evidence do you want? LOOK AT THE FOSSIL RECORD. It's PHYSICAL PROOF. I mean have you ever step inside a freaking museum once in your life? It's right in front of your face; hell a quick google and you can see all the evidence you'd ever want.
The fossil record is physical examples of things that lived prior to now. You STILL have yet to demonstrate a knowledge that substantiates the claim that if A looks like B, then A must be related to B. That's all I'm asking about. I've seen plenty of fossils that, if assembled in what appears to be a logical order, and put into a particular order, make sense as (in my opinion) a progression of how modern organisms might have arisen. However, I'm asking is there a reason for that order, other than the fact that we think it looks right?
sleeper;1388385 wrote:You really are just being obtuse for being obtuse's sake. Humans and "monkeys" share a common ancestor. This is FACT. This is not disputed by anyone with a PhD in biology, but somehow religious believers have all the answers and "know" something they don't know. Please tell.
I'm not being obtuse. I'm just not assuming anything. You are. You are assuming that because something looks similar, then it must be related, but I've heard no justification for that assumption.
If you were to simply give me that justification, that'd be all I wanted. I'm not asking WHETHER OR NOT the fossils that look similar are related. I'm asking WHY we think they are, apart from appearance.
To me, that logic is akin to saying that the two 6' blonds in my office, who bear a striking resemblance to one another must be related, because they look so similar, when the reality is that they could be related in no distinguishable way. Now, with them, we can test DNA, so thankfully, we don't have to just use appearance. However, with fossilized remains, we seem to think that similar appearance ... even stark similar appearance ... is evidence of relation. We don't apply that logic anywhere else, really. So why here?
