Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Book
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 3 of 41 (796672)
01-02-2017 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Adequate
01-02-2017 8:54 PM


"Joshua's Long Day"? Really? That was the second creationist claim thrown at me back in 1970 and it proved to me that creationist claims are nonsense. I was skeptical of the first (living fresh-water mollusc carbon-dated to be thousands of years old -- simply due to the reservoir effect as clearly and explicitly explained by the scientific source), but "Joshua's Long Day" claimed for computers incredible magical powers that I knew were utterly impossible even a decade before the microcomputer era, nearly a decade before my own computer education started. This claim is so bad that most Christian sites I've found that talk about do so to refute it and warn against using it. And here the author even works as a computer programmer and he couldn't tell how bogus it is? Inconceivable!
Out of curiosity, it claims to be a dialogue with a non-believer. Is it really? With whom specifically? Or is it just a rehash of the standard fundamentalist make-believe conversation in which the believer stumps the non-believer with every question and the non-believer or a by-stander ends up converting. During my time with the Jesus Freaks (circa 1970), their proselytizing training materials were filled with such "dialogues", including so many Chick Pubs tracts (those were a hoot and a half!). Disgusting how they believed they couldn't convert anyone just by presenting their religion honestly, but rather had to deceive or bully people into converting. Says a lot about their religion.
Edited by dwise1, : "reservoir effect"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2017 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Theodorus, posted 01-03-2017 7:05 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 4 of 41 (796673)
01-02-2017 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodorus
01-02-2017 6:15 PM


Does anybody else smell spam?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodorus, posted 01-02-2017 6:15 PM Theodorus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2017 3:00 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 17 of 41 (796758)
01-04-2017 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rrhain
01-03-2017 10:19 PM


Re: Too too funny.
Another factor is that, with very few possible exceptions, none of those cultures were isolated from the others. Even if we ignore all the migrations that went on, trade routes ran all over the Old World and there's even evidence that suggests those trade routes included contact with the New World BCE (eg, apparent evidence of Phoenician artifacts in America, tobacco found in an Egyptian mummy). Other examples included Roman trade missions to China and ancient Greek statues in Heian-kyo (Japanese imperial capital c. 800 CE).
Trade and other cultural contacts involve the exchange of ideas, myths, and legends, which can be assimilated almost immediately, especially in an oral tradition. A modern example is the "isolated" tribe with a myth about Sirius and anthropologists were amazed that the myth included a small companion, which was the white dwarf Sirius B that had not only been discovered relatively recently but cannot be detected without a telescope. But when they consulted the notes of anthropologists from before the discovery of Sirius B the myth about Sirius had no companion. The conclusion was that they were not so hermetically isolated from the outside and that when news of Sirius B filtered in it got incorporated into the myth. Even though this story is very likely apocryphal, it does demonstrate the process.
Another example is the urban legend (definitely an oral tradition) about President Nixon going for a swim in the ocean at the Western White House and being saved from drowning by a boy who happened to be there. Nixon offered him whatever reward he wanted, but all the boy wanted was that his father not learn that he had saved Nixon for which his father would surely punish him. That one spans several decades and cultures, having also been told about Hitler, Stalin, FDR, etc.
When a culture first assimilates a new myth or legend, it changes it to fit into that culture. Then just a single generation or two later, everybody knows that that myth has been in the culture since forever. The Romantic Era in 19th Century Europe believed that folk tales had remained virtually unchanged within the culture for several centuries, whereas in reality they were only a few generations old.
The most likely scenario is that these stories had spread from one culture to another, changing and being assimilated each time. Judaic tradition which ended up being written down was just one of the recipients of the story of a god making the sun stand still. It is very unlikely that Judaic tradition was the origin of the story and there is no reason to assume it to be.
This is very weak and questionable "proof" for the truth of a specific form of Christianity. It is far too unreliable to be used seriously. Yet we continually see this same kind of "proof" being presented, which only serves to make the one relying on it appear foolish. As Dr. Allan Harvey (a practicing Christian) wrote in his essay on Thoughts on "Joshua's Long Day" (which I linked to in my first reply in this topic):
quote:
Are these just harmless stories? I believe they are actually a significant problem for the church for a couple of reasons.
First, they contribute to the perception that Christianity is for stupid people. While there are bigger factors in that perception (notably the "creation science" movement), these stories make Christians look foolish. Of course the Bible tells us that our faith will look foolish to outsiders (1 Cor. 1:18-25), but it is the cross of Christ that the world is supposed to scoff at, not our own silliness on matters unrelated to the gospel [or "stupid and senseless controversies" (2 Tim. 2:23)].
If Christians seeking to support and promote their religion were to devote even a hundredth of the time and energy on valid attempts as they spend on foolish and false nonsense, they might actually be able to accomplish something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2017 10:19 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 01-04-2017 3:57 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 20 of 41 (796765)
01-04-2017 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
01-04-2017 3:57 AM


Re: Too too funny.
But all you really have as evidence for the transmission of the Flood stories by that means is speculation. You really don't know, you are guessing.
Actual bumper sticker I once saw:
quote:
Militant Agnostic: I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU!
All you really have as evidence for the transmission of the Flood stories as you wish to imagine it is speculation. You really don't know, you are guessing.
The difference is that the transmission of myths and legends from one culture to another and from one generation to another within a culture has been studied for a few centuries, so we do know fairly well how that works. What I presented is much closer to what we know about such things. Your idea "that the stories represent a universal memory distorted over time" is much closer to the nave ideas from Romantic Era nationalism which were shown long ago to be foolish. But at least out of that 19th century daydream came Grimm's Fairy Tales, which were folk tales collected by two linguists, the Brothers Grimm, who collected them as part of their linguistical research (Grimm's Law detailing with consonant changes is very important in German linguistics).
The point is that this kind of "evidence" supporting the Bible is very weak and not very useful, yet so many fundamentalists keep presenting it as conclusive proof (eg, young earth creationists still make much out of the existence of flood stories in other cultures). The point I was making is that their time and effort would be much better spent with far better results is they were to seek actual valid evidence instead of resorting to nonsense which only serves to discredit them and their religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 01-04-2017 3:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 01-04-2017 10:36 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 01-04-2017 10:50 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024