Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

Geomy

endacl wrote: »

Not...... quite......

Celebrities do (unfortunately) exist. They are verifiable.

Yeah but it's nonsense to worship them.
Where I live many of them have house's for the summer and shop and mingle in the local village's without any intrusion etc
I can't see the big deal they're quite normal. ..

Well it's the more laid back celeb's who stay out of the limelight. ..

As for the likes of....

Bannasidhe

Geomy wrote: »

Ah sure if humanity progress over the next couple of thousand years, they won't believe the **** that went on this century either ;-)

People worshipping djs, celeb's,labels,writers,superficial bull****....

To me modern day celeb worship is just as mad as worshiping carved stone and wood....

Not sure what this has to do with my post which was simply saying that just because something is old does not mean it is true - history is littered with ancient forgeries and down right lies sold as truth.
The age of the document has no baring on how a historian examines it.

What you have described is not quite the same 'worship' thing as 'worshiping' a God really - not is it confined to this century or even the one before.
In the Modern Era Lord Byron (died 1824) is considered one of the first celebrities in the way you are referring to here but no one is claiming Byron was a God or issuing dire threats of eternal torment for failing to believe in Byron.

Byronites are not lobbying government to have the study of Wordsworth or Coleridge banned for they were an abomination unto Byron.

Like Byron, Valentino, Brian Jones, Marc Bolan, Jimi Hendrix etc etc today's fodder for the gossip rags will fade from memory as their fans die out just as the celebrities of Ancient Rome are long forgotten.

seamus

Celebrity worship went on long before the advent of TV or radio, just national or international celebrities were much more likely to be monarchs or dictators, and occasionally composers or playwrights if they were really good.

Celebrities would typically be far more local than they tend to be now.

Brian Shanahan

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Possibly but no more so than any artifact of a similar age.

So the bible is more historical than Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, a book writ about the same time?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So the bible is more historical than Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, a book writ about the same time?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

May I add Gilgamesh for extra bells?

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

May I add Gilgamesh for extra bells?

Temba, his arms open.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Temba, his arms open.

said Picard.

Geomy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not sure what this has to do with my post which was simply saying that just because something is old does not mean it is true - history is littered with ancient forgeries and down right lies sold as truth.
The age of the document has no baring on how a historian examines it.

What you have described is not quite the same 'worship' thing as 'worshiping' a God really - not is it confined to this century or even the one before.
In the Modern Era Lord Byron (died 1824) is considered one of the first celebrities in the way you are referring to here but no one is claiming Byron was a God or issuing dire threats of eternal torment for failing to believe in Byron.

Byronites are not lobbying government to have the study of Wordsworth or Coleridge banned for they were an abomination unto Byron.

Like Byron, Valentino, Brian Jones, Marc Bolan, Jimi Hendrix etc etc today's fodder for the gossip rags will fade from memory as their fans die out just as the celebrities of Ancient Rome are long forgotten.

It all depends on how you read my post, kinda like the age of my post having a bearing on your interpretation of it....

Worship is worship, if I think Laurent Garnier is spinning the wheels of steel and pumping out old school detroit techno then drops that famous house music tune by Eddie Amador..

Next thing a disco biscuit is dropped, your now on a love trip hands in the air and house music, it's a spiritual thing....
Laurent is a demi God

Kinda like taking communion that's a love thang...

Mark Hamill

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No I am talking about its intent...

First of all, can you answer my first questions:
Given then that you don't believe in the bible, what is your argument for discrediting it? Is it as laughable as any other? Why not?

Then, to answer your current statement...what? You are saying that the bible's possible intents can not be proven but be equally disproven?

Bannasidhe

Geomy wrote: »

It all depends on how you read my post, kinda like the age of my post having a bearing on your interpretation of it....

Worship is worship, if I think Laurent Garnier is spinning the wheels of steel and pumping out old school detroit techno then drops that famous house music tune by Eddie Adamour...

Next thing a disco biscuit is dropped, your now on a love trip hands in the air and house music, it's a spiritual thing....
Laurent is a demi God

Kinda like taking communion that's a love thang...

endacl

Geomy wrote: »

It all depends on how you read my post, kinda like the age of my post having a bearing on your interpretation of it....

Worship is worship, if I think Laurent Garnier is spinning the wheels of steel and pumping out old school detroit techno then drops that famous house music tune by Eddie Amador..

Next thing a disco biscuit is dropped, your now on a love trip hands in the air and house music, it's a spiritual thing....
Laurent is a demi God

Kinda like taking communion that's a love thang...

The track would have well finished by the time the disco-biscuit kicked in, although I do indeed applaud a sterling effort at getting the thread back to biscuits.

Hotblack Desiato

kylith wrote: »

The everyday Catholic on the street may not be but have you had a look at the abortion debate? The RCC threatening politicians with excommunication unless they vote in line with RCC ideology, priest preaching anti-choice from the pulpits, Catholic lobby groups harassing politicians in their homes, Christian fundamentalists sending politicians death threats.

You left out popping abortion leaflets into 5-year-olds' school bags...

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are taking a very specific example, the RCC do not speak for all Christians.. You may as well talk about the KKK as the too pertained to being a Christian organisation.

Are you dismissing the point because I didn't give examples from enough religions? I speak mostly about the RCC because that's what I know best, but ok:

The CoE, which runs the UK Boy Scouts, insists on swearing an oath to God, Christians complained about 'there's probably no God' bus ads and had them removed.

Worldwide Christians attempt block sex education in schools, block the sale of contraceptives, block the sale of emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill, and block access to abortion services, block equal rights for homosexuals, try to block scientific process (e.g. stem cell research), and I'm sure much more that I don't have time to add, and all of it based on their interpretation of a book which you have agreed is not a factual text.

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Plus this term 'historical artifact' really just means it is old. In the case of the various books in the Bible we have no way of knowing how old or whether they are contemporary with the events they describe so essentially they are a collection of laws and folk tales from one particular group of people who happened to be literate.
Their age does not confer any status upon them other than 'old' - it certainly does not lend them credibility. After all - the Greeks also wrote down their laws and told us all about their Gods. The difference is the Greeks never claimed these written words were the words of the Gods themselves.

In short Ancient document does not = truth.

Not all of the Bible is climed to be the written word of god, actually very little of it makes that claim, for the most part it claims to be the testaments of people who claim they witnessed certrain things.

AGAIN the bible is not one book, it's is lot's of books written over a a few centruries... Historians reckon the first few books of the bible or the torah date back to around the 6th Century BC and that the books of the new testament could have been written around 1900 years ago...

Some religious communities choose to include some books and not others..
The fact remains that they where written and the do exist, so they are of historical value.

In terms of trying to verify how credible it is, like any history of its time it becomes near impossible to say without any real doubt this did happen. But all history is like this...

Now you might think is all a load of BS, something that has survived thounds of year I personally think it somewhat discrepectful...

That is not to say you have to believe everything or even anything contained in it, at very least it lets us know about the people of its time and what they believed, the laws they stood by and an incredible lot about there culture....

I think essentially we are having two different arguements, I give the bible some credibibily as a source as it gives insight to a time and of a people....

Whereas it appears people here want to get bogged down on its context and what other people did after the fact...

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

Are you dismissing the point because I didn't give examples from enough religions? I speak mostly about the RCC because that's what I know best, but ok:

The CoE, which runs the UK Boy Scouts, insists on swearing an oath to God, Christians complained about 'there's probably no God' bus ads and had them removed.

Worldwide Christians attempt block sex education in schools, block the sale of contraceptives, block the sale of emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill, and block access to abortion services, block equal rights for homosexuals, try to block scientific process (e.g. stem cell research), and I'm sure much more that I don't have time to add, and all of it based on their interpretation of a book which you have agreed is not a factual text.

Again agreed, but you seem to want to hold the book responsible for that??

People need to be responsible for their own actions, or the things they believe in.

The above has some contentious issue, abortion services is really an argument on what we deem as life, it moves for me at least away from religion and down to peoples personal opinion.

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Not all of the Bible is climed to be the written word of god, actually very little of it makes that claim, for the most part it claims to be the testaments of people who claim they witnessed certrain things.

AGAIN the bible is not one book, it's is lot's of books written over a a few centruries... Historians reckon the first few books of the bible or the torah date back to around the 6th Century BC and that the books of the new testament could have been written around 1900 years ago...

Some religious communities choose to include some books and not others..
The fact remains that they where written and the do exist, so they are of historical value.

In terms of trying to verify how credible it is, like any history of its time it becomes near impossible to say without any real doubt this did happen. But all history is like this...

Now you might think is all a load of BS, something that has survived thounds of year I personally think it somewhat discrepectful...

That is not to say you have to believe everything or even anything contained in it, at very least it lets us know about the people of its time and what they believed, the laws they stood by and an incredible lot about there culture....

I think essentially we are having two different arguements, I give the bible some credibibily as a source as it gives insight to a time and of a people....

Whereas it appears people here want to get bogged down on its context and what other people did after the fact...

See that highlighted bit? That's just not correct.

The next time you wish to teach this grandmother to suck eggs you may wish to ensure you know how to do so yourself first.

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again agreed, but you seem to want to hold the book responsible for that??

Well, yes. Most of those things are in the book itself; women purely as reproductive chattel, the edict to kill anyone who doesn't share your religion - these things are based on the bible. Hate and misogyny are taught by that book, and by other religious books. If these books were not in existence perhaps things would be the same, but perhaps not; as we discussed earlier pre-Abrahamic societies had gender and sexual equality and social rules far in advance of what the bible teaches; if it were not for the bible we may well have a better world.

People need to be responsible for their own actions, or the things they believe in.

Of course they do, and pointing out to them that their holy book is either incorrect or exaggerated, and demonstrating the harm that following the bible can do, is one step in teaching them to be responsible for their actions and beliefs.

The above has some contentious issue, abortion services is really an argument on what we deem as life, it moves for me at least away from religion and down to peoples personal opinion.

Perhaps, but I personally do not know anyone who is against abortion for any reason who is not religious.

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

See that highlighted bit? That's just not correct.

The next time you wish to teach this grandmother to suck eggs you may wish to ensure you know how to do so yourself first.

If I have a point at least I will try and argue the point. Your statement "That's just not correct." Really? Says who?

You are entitled to your opinion of course but it is just an opinion..

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

Well, yes. Most of those things are in the book itself; women purely as reproductive chattel, the edict to kill anyone who doesn't share your religion - these things are based on the bible. Hate and misogyny are taught by that book, and by other religious books. If these books were not in existence perhaps things would be the same, but perhaps not; as we discussed earlier pre-Abrahamic societies had gender and sexual equality and social rules far in advance of what the bible teaches; if it were not for the bible we may well have a better world.


Of course they do, and pointing out to them that their holy book is either incorrect or exaggerated, and demonstrating the harm that following the bible can do, is one step in teaching them to be responsible for their actions and beliefs.


Perhaps, but I personally do not know anyone who is against abortion for any reason who is not religious.

OK look, I have read the bible, it has a lot in it, you appear to have latched onto segments, like the religious nut jobs, that are moraly absurd.

Unforunately it probably reflects the beliefs of people of that time, but your argument is that, as it is still in the bible, people today are still trying to use this today in their biggotry....

Your idea in that if there was no bible, that somehow people would be better is absurd, people would worship something else and still find a way to be biggots...

I am somewhat close to abortion topic, it is a very sensetive issue something that even non-christans find very upsetting regardless of their views, I would prefer to drop that from any arguements please.

Zombrex

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Your idea in that if there was no bible, that somehow people would be better is absurd, people would worship something else and still find a way to be biggots...

If that was the case then humanity would never have made any progress in that last 2,000 years. We would still be sitting around stoning people to death and thinking that fire earth and water were the primary elements of nature.

As people abandoned the Bible (by degrees, some completely some just no longer took it literally) humanity made progress, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, through Copernicus to Jefferson to Einstein.

It is not a give that you will replace bad ideas with more bad ideas. Sure it does happen. But it doesn't always happen. Often bad ideas are replaced with good ideas, or at least better idea.

Rev Hellfire

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Your idea in that if there was no bible, that somehow people would be better is absurd, people would worship something else and still find a way to be biggots...

True, but if that something else was grounded in reality there might be fewer bigots.

robindch

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Your idea in that if there was no bible, that somehow people would be better is absurd, people would worship something else and still find a way to be biggots...

That's a bit like saying that diseases shouldn't be cured because everybody's got to die of something.

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

That's a bit like saying that diseases shouldn't be cured because everybody's got to die of something.

I'm pretty sure there's a TD who would agree with that sentiment.

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If I have a point at least I will try and argue the point. Your statement "That's just not correct." Really? Says who?

You are entitled to your opinion of course but it is just an opinion..

In terms of trying to verify how credible it is, like any history of its time it becomes near impossible to say without any real doubt this did happen. But all history is like this

No it is not just an opinion in this case. It goes to the heart of what the discipline of History entails and you seem to think historians can simply theorise, extrapolate, conjecture and posit and then call that 'history'. This is simply not correct. You really don't seem to understand the strict rules that apply - these are not my rules. They are the rules.

Every history undergrad learns these rules and abides by them or they fail. I know this as I sit in exam boards where we fail them.

Every writer of history knows these rules and they adhere to them or they get, rightly, savaged in peer review - should they ever managed to get published they will be savaged. As was demonstrated by the Peter Hart controversy some years ago when he published The IRA and its Enemies - he refused to name his sources and claimed to have interviewed two participants of the Kilmichael Ambush in 1988-1989. Investigation revealed that only one participant was still alive at the time and he was too ill to have been interviewed by anyone - as was affirmed in an affidavit by his son - plus during one of the dates Hart gave for when he had conducted these interviews the sole surviving participant had been dead for 6 days.
Hart's career as a Historian never recovered. He work was seen as fatally tainted and therefore was not 'history' but 'pseudo history'.
If you think historians don't check each others work you obviously don't know many historians.




History is firmly based on the evidence, no source is considered in isolation and every document is cross checked against other contemporary documents. For the time period covered in the NT there is a wealth of documents as those Roman Imperialists were obsessive about writing reports and glowing accounts of their own magnificence. They also had a bit of a thing about 'histories'. Not to mention all those artifacts...
All of these, taken together, provide a very good picture of the time period.

Yes, the Bible is a source about the beliefs of an ancient people - or to be exact the beliefs of members of an ancient people who wrote what they believed down.
It is also a source which has been 'edited', translated, copied and all of these tell us about the people who edited, translated and copied it. Biblical Historians can and do access the wealth of other documents and archaeological artifacts from the time period and this allows them to investigate the various books of the Bible in great detail - and has allowed them to discount much of it's content as false as the Bible contradicts the other sources or the archaeology says the time frame is completely wrong. For example - although the Roman Empire did conduct detailed census (gotta get those taxes in) there was no census conducted in the time frame given for Jesus' birth. The ruins of Jericho exist - layer upon layer of highly informative strata which have been excavated and analysed. Yes, the walls of Jericho 'fell down' but at several hundred years remove from the time period given to this event in the Bible.

The Bible is no more/no less an accurate portrayal of it's time period than the Táin Bó Cúailnge is of Ancient Gaelic Ireland - but no one is suggesting we base our laws on the Táin or threatening damnation for not believing in the Dagda - who after all was top God in Ireland for considerably longer than the relatively recently imported Yahweh .

kiffer

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Now you might think is all a load of BS, something that has survived thounds of year I personally think it somewhat discrepectful...

Disrespectful to whom?

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK look, I have read the bible, it has a lot in it, you appear to have latched onto segments, like the religious nut jobs, that are moraly absurd.

These are the faultless rules of a divine being as laid down in the bible. If they're morally absurd that's not my fault.

Unforunately it probably reflects the beliefs of people of that time, but your argument is that, as it is still in the bible, people today are still trying to use this today in their biggotry....

I don't understand what you're saying here. We should give the bible a free pass because it's antique bigotry?

Your idea in that if there was no bible, that somehow people would be better is absurd, people would worship something else and still find a way to be biggots...

Are you really suggesting that it's not worth trying teach people to show tolerance and respect to each other because some people will still be dicks to each other? As robindch said; that's like saying that it's pointless trying to cure dyptheria because people will still die of TB.

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As was demonstrated by the Peter Hart controversy some years ago when he published The IRA and its Enemies - he refused to name his sources and claimed to have interviewed two participants of the Kilmichael Ambush in 1988-1989. Investigation revealed that only one participant was still alive at the time and he was too ill to have been interviewed by anyone - as was affirmed in an affidavit by his son - plus during one of the dates Hart gave for when he had conducted these interviews the sole surviving participant had been dead for 6 days.
Hart's career as a Historian never recovered. He work was seen as fatally tainted and therefore was not 'history' but 'pseudo history'..

You are comparing Modern history with Ancient history you may as well compare apples and oranges!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

History is firmly based on the evidence, no source is considered in isolation and every document is cross checked against other contemporary documents.

Agreed, if you want to make a comparison why do you not make a comparison of books written in the same time period?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For the time period covered in the NT there is a wealth of documents as those Roman Imperialists were obsessive about writing reports and glowing accounts of their own magnificence. They also had a bit of a thing about 'histories'. Not to mention all those artifacts...
All of these, taken together, provide a very good picture of the time period.

Again, if you have a specific argument why not make it? Are you saying that these accounts (although you make no specific reference) discredits any of the accounts given in the bible? Or simply there is nothing to support the stories their in?

My understanding around the time period of the NT is that most modern schollars agree that Jesus did exist, who or what he was is a different story.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes, the Bible is a source about the beliefs of an ancient people - or to be exact the beliefs of members of an ancient people who wrote what they believed down.

Agreed, as like a lot of sources of it's time usually any written account of any events usually had some underlying reason whether it be political or otherwise!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is also a source which has been 'edited', translated, copied and all of these tell us about the people who edited, translated and copied it.

Agreed.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Biblical Historians can and do access the wealth of other documents and archaeological artifacts from the time period and this allows them to investigate the various books of the Bible in great detail - and has allowed them to discount much of it's content as false as the Bible contradicts the other sources or the archaeology says the time frame is completely wrong. For example - although the Roman Empire did conduct detailed census (gotta get those taxes in) there was no census conducted in the time frame given for Jesus' birth. The ruins of Jericho exist - layer upon layer of highly informative strata which have been excavated and analysed. Yes, the walls of Jericho 'fell down' but at several hundred years remove from the time period given to this event in the Bible.

The Bible is no more/no less an accurate portrayal of it's time period than the Táin Bó Cúailnge is of Ancient Gaelic Ireland

Again agreed, this was the point I made earlier, granted I said "all History" when it was more geared at Ancient History or specifically anything written in and around the time the bible was written / rewritten.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

but no one is suggesting we base our laws on the Táin or threatening damnation for not believing in the Dagda - who after all was top God in Ireland for considerably longer than the relatively recently imported Yahweh .

This is more to do with the time currently we are in, given a more primative Ireland laws perhaps where based on the gods of old...

I fail to see thet point you have tired to make? Are you saying the bible is of no historical value? Or that you dissagree in the statement I made that history of that time is hard to verify?

ShowMeTheCash

kiffer wrote: »

Disrespectful to whom?

To the written word.

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

To the written word.

I would call myself a bibliophile to the extent that I have trouble throwing out books which are damaged beyond repair, but the idea that anything anyone could say or do would be disrespectful to a collection of pulped wood and pigment, or to text in general is a bit barmy.

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

These are the faultless rules of a divine being as laid down in the bible. If they're morally absurd that's not my fault.

Not everyone views the bible as stated. You seem to be taking the polar opposite stance of someone that does.

kylith wrote: »

I don't understand what you're saying here. We should give the bible a free pass because it's antique bigotry? .

Free pass? What are you talking about... It's a book! You want to take it literally, I don't!

kylith wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that it's not worth trying teach people to show tolerance and respect to each other because some people will still be dicks to each other? As robindch said; that's like saying that it's pointless trying to cure dyptheria because people will still die of TB.

Again, what are you talking about??? You seem to want to blame the existance of the bible for the atrocities of man kind... And that if it did not exist that someone we would live in some kind if utopia!

You are suggesting we get rid of a book or because you deem yourself to be enlightened that it would be better if the bible did not exist, then you are talking about tolerance and respect??

I think Hitler was all about burning books and brainwashing a nation into thinking like he did, perhaps you should read mein kampf!

People need to be allowed to read what they want and in essence be allowed to believe what they want.... After that, if peopel still want to be small minded so be it.

robindch

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

kiffer wrote: »

Disrespectful to whom?

To the written word.

I don't think ink or pixels can take offence.

lazygal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think Hitler was all about burning books and brainwashing a nation into thinking like he did, perhaps you should read mein kampf!

Godwin - who'd have thunk it'd take so long?

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

I would call myself a bibliophile to the extent that I have trouble throwing out books which are damaged beyond repair, but the idea that anything anyone could say or do would be disrespectful to a collection of pulped wood and pigment, or to text in general is a bit barmy.

Well your description then does not suprise me...
You see a collection of pulped wood and pigment..
I see decades of work and an insight to a people and a time long gone.

ShowMeTheCash

lazygal wrote: »

Godwin - who'd have thunk it'd take so long?

LOL - I know I stopped for a bit and thought hmmmm Do not make this point

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are comparing Modern history with Ancient history you may as well compare apples and oranges!



Agreed, if you want to make a comparison why do you not make a comparison of books written in the same time period?



Again, if you have a specific argument why not make it? Are you saying that these accounts (although you make no specific reference) discredits any of the accounts given in the bible? Or simply there is nothing to support the stories their in?

My understanding around the time period of the NT is that most modern schollars agree that Jesus did exist, who or what he was is a different story.



Agreed, as like a lot of sources of it's time usually any written account of any events usually had some underlying reason whether it be political or otherwise!



Agreed.




Again agreed, this was the point I made earlier, granted I said "all History" when it was more geared at Ancient History or specifically anything written in and around the time the bible was written / rewritten.



This is more to do with the time currently we are in, given a more primative Ireland laws perhaps where based on the gods of old...

I fail to see thet point you have tired to make? Are you saying the bible is of no historical value? Or that you dissagree in the statement I made that history of that time is hard to verify?

I haven't 'tired' to make any point. I have made the point that the era under investigation is immaterial to how a historian treats the material and to the rules of historical investigation.

You seem to wish to make a special case for the Bible based on it's antiquity. There is no special case to be made. It is a source like any other and should be treated as such. It's age is not relevant.

I did not say it was of no value - just like I did not say the Táin is of no value - I said it is a source pertaining to the beliefs of a particular group of people. Nothing more/nothing less.

The Táin is contemporary with the NT - which is why I referred to it.

I do disagree with your statement that the history of the time - if we are talking about the NT - is hard to verify. Far from it. There is a wealth of material available on even the more far-flung parts of the Roman Empire.
Now, if the NT had been composed in a non-literate region, say Northern Europe, then yes, it would be hard to verify. But it wasn't. It was composed by a highly literate people in a time and place for which we have a multitude of sources.

We also have access to Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian etc etc sources which are contemporary with the OT - not as many as for the NT granted but they do exist. There is also the fact that the archaeology contradicts the time lines given in the OT.

By the way - re: 'given a more primative Ireland laws perhaps where based on the gods of old...'

The laws of Gaelic Ireland (define 'primitive') are the 2nd oldest legal code in the world and it was not based, in anyway whatsoever, on gods. It was purely secular. It dates from c 2,500 BCE and it survived until the 17th century with some adaptations along the way to reflect changes in society - the brehons were very careful to note any changes made and is widely studied even today around the world by scholars.

So ironically, while you claim special status for the Bible and insist that the time period is hard to verify scholars can and do examine passages of the Táin and then cross- reference with the Brehon Laws to provide an explanation/verification for some of the events which took place.

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I haven't 'tired' to make any point. I have made the point that the era under investigation is immaterial to how a historian treats the material and to the rules of historical investigation.

You seem to wish to make a special case for the Bible based on it's antiquity. There is no special case to be made. It is a source like any other and should be treated as such. It's age is not relevant.

I did not say it was of no value - just like I did not say the Táin is of no value - I said it is a source pertaining to the beliefs of a particular group of people. Nothing more/nothing less.

The Táin is contemporary with the NT - which is why I referred to it.

I do disagree with your statement that the history of the time - if we are talking about the NT - is hard to verify. Far from it. There is a wealth of material available on even the more far-flung parts of the Roman Empire.
Now, if the NT had been composed in a non-literate region, say Northern Europe, then yes, it would be hard to verify. But it wasn't. It was composed by a highly literate people in a time and place for which we have a multitude of sources.

We also have access to Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian etc etc sources which are contemporary with the OT - not as many as for the NT granted but they do exist. There is also the fact that the archaeology contradicts the time lines given in the OT.

By the way - re: 'given a more primative Ireland laws perhaps where based on the gods of old...'

The laws of Gaelic Ireland (define 'primitive') are the 2nd oldest legal code in the world and it was not based, in anyway whatsoever, on gods. It was purely secular. It dates from c 2,500 BCE and it survived until the 17th century with some adaptations along the way to reflect changes in society - the brehons were very careful to note any changes made and is widely studied even today around the world by scholars.

So ironically, while you claim special status for the Bible and insist that the time period is hard to verify scholars can and do examine passages of the Táin and then cross- reference with the Brehon Laws to provide an explanation/verification for some of the events which took place.

I think you have managed to let your imagination run wilde with you.
I at no point have I tried to give the bible "special status" I only suggested that as a historical source it held weight.

My original argument albeit not with you was in repsonse to the idea that the whole thing was "made up" and it held no weight. My argument being if you think it holds no weight then a lot of historical content could equally be argued to be "made up"...

As for ancient Ireland, I have no idea of our primative laws I simply suggested they could have influenced the laws of that time...

As this seems to be the case with most civilizations...

Sarky

Oh for the love of god, dig UP.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Oh for the love of god, dig UP.

I don't think that is possible when a person is 'simply suggesting' without doing even a modicum of research first.

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't think that is possible when a person is 'simply suggesting' without doing even a modicum of research first.

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper..
However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument I find amusing none the less!

Sarky

You do want to be taken seriously though. So get researching or keep digging.

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper..
However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument I find amusing none the less!

Lucky for you.

robindch

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper.

You are engaging, however, in online debate. And something like a paper, or even just a brief outline of facts like the one helpfully posted by Bannasidhe above, would go a long way towards making you appear more convincing.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument [...]

If you look back over the debate, Bannasidhe's one-line replies generally came in response to your vague replies to her lengthy replies. In short, pots and kettles really.

Nodin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper..
However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument I find amusing none the less!

....ye wouldn't do us a favour and outline what, exactly, your argument is, would ye?

old hippy

Nodin wrote: »

....ye wouldn't do us a favour and outline what, exactly, your argument is, would ye?

The Bible is an accurate document of ye rare olde middle eastern times and should be accepted as such... also, something something something Hitler etc

Bannasidhe

old hippy wrote: »

The Bible is an accurate document of ye rare olde middle eastern times and should be accepted as such... also, something something something Hitler etc

and when it comes down to it history cannot be verified anyway.



I must away now and throw out all of those copies of royal proclamations I got from Kew, plus all of those State papers I have copies of (fecking boxes of them), oh -forgot about the Early Modern books - must cancel my subscription to Early Modern books on-line and I may as well stop translating all of those damn Irish annals into English as there is no point really as nothing can be verified so I may as well make it up as I go along. ..
and then I can kiss my career goodbye.

ShowMeTheCash

old hippy wrote: »

The Bible is an accurate document of ye rare olde middle eastern times and should be accepted as such... also, something something something Hitler etc

Look a number of you have went on a tangent, you can read back threw the posts.

At no point did I say accurate document, I dissagreed with the idea of it being "made up"...

You want to jump on the bangwaggon so be it.

I see arguments to points i have not even made.

Bannasidhe is making a lot of assumptions the siting events that hold no relevence to my argument.

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look a number of you have went on a tangent, you can read back threw the posts.

At no point did I say accurate document, I dissagreed with the idea of it being "made up"...

You want to jump on the bangwaggon so be it.

I see arguments to points i have not even made.

Bannasidhe is making a lot of assumptions the siting events that hold no relevence to my argument.

Why don't you outline exactly what your argument is so?

You can leave out the bit about no history being verifiable if you like.

lazygal

Dp

lazygal

Bangwaggon. Snigger.

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look a number of you have went on a tangent, you can read back threw the posts.

At no point did I say accurate document, I dissagreed with the idea of it being "made up"...

In fairness I said 'madey uppey or exaggerated', or are you suggesting that people living to be hundreds of years old and guys walking on water and bringing back the dead are factual?