"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" [Archive] - Page 2

fullflavormenthol

27th June 2008, 11:46 PM

I think spiritual masters were involved with the biblical texts (makes a lot of sense), and as such were capable of writing content that could be attributable to a spiritual master, as it suited their agenda. If you look at 'associated traits' of Pisces on Wikipedia, age of Pisces being synonomous with Jesus (as per Zeitgiest)

I am going to chime in right here and remind you that the concept of astrological ages doesn't show up in the ancient literature. It is more modern than the New Testament, as such age of Pisces talk doesn't factor into the discussion. "Suited their agenda"? Are you implying that the Bible was written by a small group? If anything the whole of this thread as discussed over and over again the Bible is the result of only a handful of the numerous texts being canonized.

...., you find:
* malleable / impressionable [4][5]
* gentle [4][5]
* good natured / easygoing [4][5]
* likeable / kind [4][5]
* compassionate / sympathetic [4][5][6]
* sensitive [4][5]
* impractical / dreamy [4][5]
* instinctual / intuitive [4][5]
* imaginative / artistically able [4][5][6]
* versatile [4][5]
* gullible / naive / easily led [4][5]
* spiritual [4][5][6]
* escapist [4][5]
* selfless [5][6]

Have you ever actually attempted to assign the "traits" of an astrological sign to people not of that particular sign? It is interesting that only then do you realize the vague and self contradictory nature of astrological "traits". Than again the Tropical Zodiac isn't really much of this debate for a lot of reasons.

If someone were to ask does Jesus have the traits of a Pisces, I think you'd have to answer yes.

He also has the "traits" of Scorpio, Libra, Taurus, Cancer and any other sign you want to stick him with. The "traits" are vague enough to fit with any individual. We are all different things at different times.

Note 'spiritual' is in that list.

All religious figures are "spiritual".

Why were earlier bibilical figures like Moses so vengeful, such a constrast to Jesus?

Jesus wasn't without the anger and vengeful side. In fact Moses wasn't very vengeful either if judging the two together, God was vengeful. There are sections of the New Testament that deal with Jesus and the concept of rightous anger.

Why wasn't Jesus vengeful, given he was the son of God (who demonstrably could be angered with little effort)?

Let me geuss, you have an answer...

If you believe the alignment with Pisces to be true, it goes some way in answering these questions.

I don't. That is probably the reason why I look more into the movements within Judaism prior to the advent of Jesus, which yield answers to these questions. The Talmud is a good place to start.

Sure these are simply correlations and conjecture, at the end of the day they cannot prove anything, but I don't think they should be written off.
Even if there did exist 'strong' evidence, it probably wouldn't change a damn thing :). Book of Mormon once again comes to mind (lost pages of translation, which conveniently couldn't be re-translated), and then there's scientology..

Well needless to say...the history of the Bible is just a little bit more complex than the history of the Mormon church or the writtings of L. Ron Hubbard.

With the Bible there are non-canonical books that can be looked to, and writings of scholars at the time. Also if one were looking for the reason why a messiah figure might come about than I would recommend looking into the history surrounding messianic religions. A great case study of which is in the Americas. Research the Ghost Dance religion, and you'll get clued into to the type of social situations that seem to be a precursor to messianic faiths.

GreNME

28th June 2008, 01:31 AM

I understand that Zeitgeist has a great many holes in logic, doesn't have the evidence to back up its many claims etc. For those that write it off though, I'm just wondering whether you actually disagree with the following central tenets of the film (from parts one and three)?

You're trying to hard to word your question with a "gotcha" contingent built in. No offense, but I find it dishonest-- similar to the guys who claim to be asking for where the laws are requiring people to pay taxes but wording in a bunch of caveats claiming the laws that are actually there don't count.

- A number of mainstream religions have their roots in, or have been inspired by, astrotheology

Astrotheology is a pseudoscience, and a modern one at that.

- Current economic system confers too many benefits to those who hold the capital (the bankers, super rich). In this way the remainder of society must work harder to maintain the status quo.

This statement ignores that quality of life continues to be upwardly mobile in many parts of the world.

I know some will feel I have unreasonably paraphrased the section on economics, that the film was making far grander claims.. There was a lot of fluff in there, but I thought the core idea was that banking systems have too much wealth flow to the top of the hierarchy. It was the conclusions drawn from this central idea that were lacking in substance.

All banking systems are going to be weighted upward. The more wealth you have, the more resources you can utilize to grow that wealth.

Back to astrotheology..

It is pure pseudoscience.

Lets say we start with the premise that religion is entirely a man made construct - no deity was ever involved, there were never any messiahs or miracle workers. Given this, isn't the idea that religion evolved from astrotheology a believable, if not the most probable, account of its creation?

No.

This is based on the theory that astrotheology was the dominant theistic belief in ancient civilization (which I'm led to believe is true.. I may need to be corrected on this).

It's based on a theory without substance or proof. Not all early instances of civilization had the same religion, and very few were sky-based. Most of the religions of early man dealt with ancestor worship, nature worship, or power worship.

That's correct, though to be inspired by astrotheology doesn't mean it's needs to share the bulk of its concepts, indeed why not just stick with astrotheology if this was the intent. If you were tasked with writing a new religion, and decided to take some cues from astrotheology, does it logically follow that the bulk of it would be analogous to astrotheology? The book of Mormon appears to be derived from contemporary religion, yet contains material radically different from these sources.

I'm not going to go into a dissertation on where the BoM may have derived, but if you were to search consistently enough you would find that most of Smith's ideas were very 18th century in conceptualization, with mixtures of masonic ritual and Euro-centrism sprinkled within.

True it's very simplistic, but in any system where interest rates are set above the rate of inflation, it's a logical conclusion. Why isn't money lent out without interest (repayment to cover capital + inflation only)? If I have a billion in cash, I no longer need to work, and *necessarily* someone else is going to be doing the hard work for me. In theory I could do this indefinitely, so long as interest rates remain above that of inflation, in effect perpetually leaching off the system (the toil of others).

You're skipping the part where you're taxed on your dividends, which means your interest wouldn't necessarily be above the inflation and your wealth would be shrinking. The situation you mention-- where someone has so much money that they conceivably don't have to work-- is actually why people who have considerable sums of money hire people or organizations to manage their money for them, so their wealth does not shrink.

I think spiritual masters were involved with the biblical texts (makes a lot of sense), and as such were capable of writing content that could be attributable to a spiritual master, as it suited their agenda.

That's not necessarily an interesting or original thesis, but what you are missing here is the most important part: evidence of any such content.

If you look at 'associated traits' of Pisces on Wikipedia, age of Pisces being synonomous with Jesus (as per Zeitgiest), you find:
* malleable / impressionable [4][5]
* gentle [4][5]
* good natured / easygoing [4][5]
* likeable / kind [4][5]
* compassionate / sympathetic [4][5][6]
* sensitive [4][5]
* impractical / dreamy [4][5]
* instinctual / intuitive [4][5]
* imaginative / artistically able [4][5][6]
* versatile [4][5]
* gullible / naive / easily led [4][5]
* spiritual [4][5][6]
* escapist [4][5]
* selfless [5][6]

And when you read astrology horoscopes, many different vague and multiple-application terms and phrases are used to "describe" the reader to allow mental associations take place in a pretty free-form manner. Someone performing a cold reading will use phrases and word associations to arrive at a conclusion in a manner that they allow the subject to make sense of for effect. However, it's all games and tricks, assumptions and subjectivity, and lacking much (if any) context. When dealing with historical content, barring the ability to travel through time context must be considered an important element to the environment you are observing. Failing to do so results in skewed and inaccurate observations.

If someone were to ask does Jesus have the traits of a Pisces, I think you'd have to answer yes.

I wouldn't have to do any such thing. You're applying backwards logic to arrive at a preconceived conclusion by trying to do that.

Note 'spiritual' is in that list. Why were earlier bibilical figures like Moses so vengeful, such a constrast to Jesus? Why wasn't Jesus vengeful, given he was the son of God (who demonstrably could be angered with little effort)? If you believe the alignment with Pisces to be true, it goes some way in answering these questions.

This is what I mean about lacking in context. You seem to be ignoring that the Torah and Old Testament stories are exclusively Jewish and contain many exclusively Jewish elements throughout (and to call it all 'vengeful' is simply ignorant and incorrect). The New Testament contain elements that are Jewish, elements that are Roman, and a few other elements depending on which translation you're using and which denominational interpretation you're using.

Sure these are simply correlations and conjecture, at the end of the day they cannot prove anything, but I don't think they should be written off.

There's no reason they shouldn't be written off. I'll see if I can explain through allegory for you:

Say you see me placing little yellow cubes around my garden. You ask me why and I tell you that they are to keep out the huge purple alligators that have been trampling my garden. You point out to me that I live on the edge of a desert, hundreds of miles away from any large body of water and thousands of miles away from anywhere that alligators are known to inhabit. I reply by pointing out that it must mean the little yellow cubes are working.

Do you honestly feel that it is rational and logical to take my statements seriously without me providing evidence that these huge purple alligators exist and that it is these alligators have been trampling my garden?

Even if there did exist 'strong' evidence, it probably wouldn't change a damn thing :). Book of Mormon once again comes to mind (lost pages of translation, which conveniently couldn't be re-translated), and then there's scientology..

Neither the BoM nor any Scientology religious document have anything resembling strong (or weak) evidence, only the claims of its adherents that the documents are 'true' because the documents say so. That is circular reasoning (and, incidentally, a pretty good description of many astrotheology claims).

Nick227

28th June 2008, 04:07 AM

That's correct, though to be inspired by astrotheology doesn't mean it's needs to share the bulk of its concepts, indeed why not just stick with astrotheology if this was the intent. If you were tasked with writing a new religion, and decided to take some cues from astrotheology, does it logically follow that the bulk of it would be analogous to astrotheology? The book of Mormon appears to be derived from contemporary religion, yet contains material radically different from these sources.

I don't know much about the book of Mormon but I studied mysticism and particularly Kaballah for a number of years so I'm pretty familiar with symbology.

Personally, I think the whole argument with astrotheology is vastly overblown. It started in the vaguely recent era with guys like Manly P Hall and Madame Blavatsky making some grandiose statements which frequently they also contradicted.

Some things to remember....

1) we don't know when the 12 house zodiac was adopted. It's quite possible this didn't happen until well into the Christian era making a big chunk of the whole astrotheology argument redundant

2) many mystical philosophies based around Christian mythos exist these days and interpret Jesus' life according to astrotheological concepts, Kaballah and Alchemy are examples. However they weren't around at the time ascribed to Jesus. They're later arrivals and they used existing stories to attach mystical concepts to.

3) in mystical terms astrotheology is acutely limited in its usefulness. The concepts are all deterministic and cyclical. Yet many mystical concepts are not remotely deterministic neither cyclical. Astrotheology is useless for relating much of this.

I think spiritual masters were involved with the biblical texts (makes a lot of sense), and as such were capable of writing content that could be attributable to a spiritual master, as it suited their agenda. If you look at 'associated traits' of Pisces on Wikipedia, age of Pisces being synonomous with Jesus (as per Zeitgiest), you find:
* malleable / impressionable [4][5]
* gentle [4][5]
* good natured / easygoing [4][5]
* likeable / kind [4][5]
* compassionate / sympathetic [4][5][6]
* sensitive [4][5]
* impractical / dreamy [4][5]
* instinctual / intuitive [4][5]
* imaginative / artistically able [4][5][6]
* versatile [4][5]
* gullible / naive / easily led [4][5]
* spiritual [4][5][6]
* escapist [4][5]
* selfless [5][6]

If someone were to ask does Jesus have the traits of a Pisces, I think you'd have to answer yes. Note 'spiritual' is in that list. Why were earlier bibilical figures like Moses so vengeful, such a constrast to Jesus? Why wasn't Jesus vengeful, given he was the son of God (who demonstrably could be angered with little effort)? If you believe the alignment with Pisces to be true, it goes some way in answering these questions.

You're wading into a big pond here, Potato! Better start checking with other astro signs and seeing how he fits in there too. What about Sagittarius, off the top of my head. Or Capricorn, or Leo? It's madness, dude. It doesn't lead anywhere.

Can I ask you something? Have you read early Christian texts for yourself? Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip? Or have you read bits and bobs of new-age writers? Read the texts, man. It's interesting, and has not much to do with astrotheology.

Nick

potato991

28th June 2008, 07:20 AM

I am going to chime in right here and remind you that the concept of astrological ages doesn't show up in the ancient literature.

Aren't the epochs based on mathematical grounds, a precessional 'great year' of 25800 years divided into 12 signs of zodiac (2150 years per epoch). It's not clear how this could have been any different prior to the testaments (I think one of the other posters will probably address this though). Regarding "suited their agenda", I wasn't implying anything specific, I have no opinion on how many people were involved with the writings.

All religious figures are "spiritual".

Agreed. I only emphasised this due to the nature of its inclusion in Nick's document.

Jesus wasn't without the anger and vengeful side.

He did rage in the temple, thankfully there were no casualties. In general Jesus appears less extreme (having never killed anyone) than one might expect of the son of God (new testament being far more moderate than the old testament).

Well needless to say...the history of the Bible is just a little bit more complex than the history of the Mormon church or the writtings of L. Ron Hubbard.

Infidel! But seriously christianity has had quite a head start. Don't you think in several thousand years the Mormon movement won't have refined somewhat, and be similarly difficult to discount? In truth it's the existence of these modern religious organisations that primarily fuel my current musings on the evolution of religion, for better or worse.

With the Bible there are non-canonical books that can be looked to, and writings of scholars at the time. Also if one were looking for the reason why a messiah figure might come about than I would recommend looking into the history surrounding messianic religions. A great case study of which is in the Americas. Research the Ghost Dance religion, and you'll get clued into to the type of social situations that seem to be a precursor to messianic faiths.

Point taken. Reading the other posts I'm under the impression astrotheology was far less prominent in ancient culture than I've been led to believe, seems I need to read up more on that also.

potato991

28th June 2008, 07:46 AM

potato991

28th June 2008, 07:55 AM

You're wading into a big pond here, Potato! Better start checking with other astro signs and seeing how he fits in there too. What about Sagittarius, off the top of my head. Or Capricorn, or Leo? It's madness, dude. It doesn't lead anywhere.

Lol I knew that full well before posting, considering the forum we're on :). Yes they endeavour to be so abstract, such that they can be seen to fit any personality. I concede it's probably just wasting peoples time due to being so insignificant / open to interpretation, but I couldn't help noting Moses did not fit that sets of traits, where Jesus did so well. I shall repent for my sins.

Can I ask you something? Have you read early Christian texts for yourself? Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip? Or have you read bits and bobs of new-age writers? Read the texts, man. It's interesting, and has not much to do with astrotheology.

None of the Gospels, only the fragments of bible covered in school, back in the day.

Anyway I believe I have my answers, thanks for all the replies. It's the actual underlying principals in Zeitgeist, as well as the methods employed, that people find disagreeable.

If in a few hundred years the 'alleged' epoch of Pisces finishes, and Christianity as we know it has transformed to something new, I'm going to come back here and demand some answers!! :D When I hear prophecies of the antichrist (relating to this scenario), it bothers me somewhat to think some crackpot* might be working to fulfil this vision.

* More of a crackpot than that potato991 character

GreNME

28th June 2008, 12:36 PM

You're trying to hard to word your question with a "gotcha" contingent built in. No offense, but I find it dishonest-- similar to the guys who claim to be asking for where the laws are requiring people to pay taxes but wording in a bunch of caveats claiming the laws that are actually there don't count.
I was actually trying to word it so as to not get flamed :).

Well, you are the only one who knows your intentions, but what I'm describing is how the wording is perceived (by me, at least). Keep that in mind throughout these posts.

Astrotheology is a pseudoscience, and a modern one at that.
How modern are we talking? Menthol was hinting at the same thing. Isn't it littered throughout Mayan/Egyptian culture?

We're talking 20th century modern. There was no pseudoscience called "astrotheology" before the late 1800's CE at the very earliest.

As for "littered throughout Mayan/Egyptian culture" you're going to have to specify with actual examples. My Egyptian is more precise than my Mayan, but I've studied the Mayan and Aztecs to a reasonable degree and I like visiting their archaeological remnants (since I live in relative proximity). Shoot some examples and let's examine whether astrotheology can actually claim them as its own or whether the story is somewhat different than what the proponents of astrotheology are writing about in their books.

This statement ignores that quality of life continues to be upwardly mobile in many parts of the world.
Absolutely agree, but that is attributable to advances in science, not the efficacy of the banking system. Though one could present a weak circular argument to try and argue the point.

You think quality of life improvements are solely due to science? Who pays the bills for science? Mankind wouldn't have walked on the moon were it not for a huge diversion of physical and monetary resources, and yet at the same time this was happening there were still physical and monetary resources to improve general quality of life in several nations. That may seem incongruous to you but the only way that this was possible was in the increase of wealth and ability to promote wealth growth through economic systems.

Banking is only a part of that, and frankly whether it's fiat banking, exchange banking, or whatever other system you want to propose, all of that wealth accumulation and growth had to have somewhere to store, grow, and be managed/invested from. That's what banking does.

All banking systems are going to be weighted upward. The more wealth you have, the more resources you can utilize to grow that wealth.
This is the point, and the problem. I wouldn't like to be born into a system of wealthy people under these conditions, and have to be the one starting from scratch. Not to say I have a better solution on hand (I think one could be found, in time), but this doesn't make the situation any more palatable.

You have nothing to compare it to, though. Before banking systems that accessible to average citizens the only option was to store your wealth in chests or in land ownership-- which was paradoxically only available to the wealthy in the first place-- or be subject to the demands and preferences of those who had wealth. If nothing else, banking has (over the centuries) made wealth accumulation and growth more accessible to average people and has thus become less uneven than centuries prior. So, if you want to look at a long-term historical view, it seems monetary systems are becoming more like your hypothetical situation where wealth is more evenly distributable, wouldn't you agree?

Ok, perhaps this is the root as to why I feel to be so out of touch with the sentiment on part one of this movie. I was of the understanding astrotheology dominated earliest civilization, perhaps I've watched too many documentaries on Mayan/Egyptian culture etc.

I suggest that instead of watching television or internet documentaries, that you check out a few books where actual details and context are given on the civilizations in question. I have yet to see a documentary on Egyptian civilization that doesn't cover only a small part of a Kingdom or period when it isn't giving vague generalizations about the people as a whole-- not saying that it isn't informative, but it's not always distinctly accurate. I've seen much the same (and, in some cases, worse) regarding the Mayan/Aztec/Inca/etc. civilizations. I can suggest to you some titles that can prove helpful, but I'd warn you ahead of time that you're not going to find any mention of words like "astrotheology" within them.

You're getting a pretty raw deal on your investment if the real value of your capital is diminishing. In general what you described doesn't happen, unless you're in Australia of course, where the highest marginal tax rate is 45% :).

Perhaps we could break the economic parts up into a separate discussion, and we can get into the details of why I am 100% sure you are incorrect in your assessment. I can assure you that the reason people who have certain sizable accumulations of wealth hire people to manage their money is specifically so they don't diminish their wealth, and the same techniques that those people use to keep their wealth from diminishing are available to those of us who don't have six or seven figures in assets to play with. The difference between the employment of such techniques isn't inherent within banking systems or government economic systems, but in the education to the general public about how to manage their wealth.

I am ignorant on the topic in a broad sense, which is why I never claimed it was all 'vengeful'. But what Moses did was vengeful, by any definition, and the old testament is littered with such examples.

I would like you to specify, because what I know of the Moses story is quite different than what you describe. I am submitting that it isn't the "broad sense" where you are ignorant to details, but in the sense of actual specifics and context where you may not have enough information. Only you, however, can change my impression on that count. Could you give some specific examples of the story of Moses you feel qualifies him as 'vengeful'?

Say you see me placing little yellow cubes around my garden. You ask me why and I tell you that they are to keep out the huge purple alligators that have been trampling my garden. You point out to me that I live on the edge of a desert, hundreds of miles away from any large body of water and thousands of miles away from anywhere that alligators are known to inhabit. I reply by pointing out that it must mean the little yellow cubes are working.

Do you honestly feel that it is rational and logical to take my statements seriously without me providing evidence that these huge purple alligators exist and that it is these alligators have been trampling my garden?
If your neighbour was doing the same, I might surmise you had simply been copying him. I have no proof of the fact, but it wouldn't take a leap of faith to get to that conclusion.

You're changing the allegory by adding your own extra information here, which disregards the context of my original question and attempts to create a new context. In your changing of the allegory it is no longer the original allegory I gave to fit the question I asked you. We can follow this separate rhetorical path later if you want, but it's not what I'm getting at.

I understand what you're trying to get at though, it's the same argument I would apply if someone lived to the ripe old age of 100, insisting it was Peter Popoff's miracle water, taken daily, that made this possible.

Kind of, but more like claiming that Popoff's miracle water gave me supernatural powers that I neither show you nor make use of in my daily life.

Sorry it was intended the other way around - meaning that even if there existed strong evidence against the claims of religion, it wouldn't necessarily have a big impact, people would continue to believe.

I don't see the necessity nor the logic in even attempting to find strong evidence against the claims of a religion. That whole problem is the "prove a negative" fallacy trap which only leads to a useless debate in the first place. That's why I, as someone who is definitely not religious and has no desire to be, don't bother trying to "disprove" any religion or faith. There is no way to disprove someone's faith as far as I'm concerned, and I prefer to deal with the science and the facts rather than playing with other people's faith. That path, in my opinion, only leads someone down the road to proposing a new faith to replace the old one, which is a practice I am ethically opposed to.

potato991

28th June 2008, 08:37 PM

As for "littered throughout Mayan/Egyptian culture" you're going to have to specify with actual examples.

Amun-Ra, sun god, considered to be king of the gods. Nut, sky god, swallowing the sun at the end of the day, giving birth to it the next morning. Shu, god of air, holding up Nut, so that the earth and the sky remain separated. Certain gods having representations in star constellations (e.g. Orion being Osiris).

However I believe my definition of astrotheology may be vastly different from your own. For me any story that derives its content from existence, alignment or movement of celestial bodies, comes under the umbrella of astrotheology. Is there a term I should be using that is better suited to those who have a more rigid definition?

You think quality of life improvements are solely due to science?

Yes. One can only dispute what brought about or fostered these advances in science. I contend a system where rates of interest are not at a premium to inflation can exist, and still make capital available for innovation. The projects you speak of were funded by the government, the tax system is another story altogether. My university debt accumulated on a government loan, where I only repaid the inflation indexed capital. Brilliant. What fundamental reasons are there preventing this financial system from being more pervasive. I'm not against banking, I just think the system of interest (set by Federal Reserve) is damaging.

I can assure you that the reason people who have certain sizable accumulations of wealth hire people to manage their money is specifically so they don't diminish their wealth,

So you're in agreement that wealthy people will continue to accumulate wealth beyond the rate of inflation, without being personally involved with said wealth creation (you just arrive at that conclusion from a different angle). Searching for "list of most wealthy figures" provides evidence of this. Over a span of 100 years we can estimate average of around 6% growth in wealth (after tax), above an average of 3.5% CPI (yielding real growth 2.5%).
Slightly OT, but why should someone born into this world have to manage someone elses wealth such that it doesn't diminish. They should be free to pursue their own goals. Don't get me wrong, they are free to do as they wish, but conditions are not as favourable as they could be. The banking crisis has really put things on the world stage, citizens deserve more stability, what's the government good for if it cannot facilitate (indirectly or otherwise) the provision of basics such as shelter.

I would like you to specify, because what I know of the Moses story is quite different than what you describe.

Exodus 32:28 "And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men". Actions speak louder than words. Vengeance "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

You're changing the allegory by adding your own extra information here, which disregards the context of my original question and attempts to create a new context.

Yes I am, because your allegory, in my opinion, did not take into account the context of my argument. That being said, I'm happy to rescind my posit on Pisces, for reasons covered in my response to Nick.

There is no way to disprove someone's faith as far as I'm concerned, and I prefer to deal with the science and the facts rather than playing with other people's faith. That path, in my opinion, only leads someone down the road to proposing a new faith to replace the old one, which is a practice I am ethically opposed to.

True.. "Law of Attraction", anyone? :D

fullflavormenthol

28th June 2008, 09:05 PM

Aren't the epochs based on mathematical grounds, a precessional 'great year' of 25800 years divided into 12 signs of zodiac (2150 years per epoch).

No. They aren't. Epoch is actually a very generalized term that has a different meaning depending upon how it is measured. For example the epoch that starts the Hebrew calendar is the creation, for which they traditionally estimated. An epoch can also refer to the beginning of an historical period, for example Queen Victoria ascending the throne would be the epochal event that begins the Victorian era. The interest in exploration of the New world is the marker of the epoch "the Age of Discovery". In geological terms it refers to a change in the type of fossils in the rock strata. In astronomy it is a term used when predicting the position of stellar bodies in a future time.

Religious calendar start at an Epochal event, but never predict future epochal events; and show no signs of using any of the zodiac measurements you are writing about. The common with the rest of them is that they are all modern. Also again the 12 sign Zodiac is by all indications after the advent of Christianity. So assuming you above statement was really a question, than the answer is no. Epochs are not based on astrology or the Zodiac beyond the MODERN astrologer, and only specific to their interpretation and not that of ancient man.

It's not clear how this could have been any different prior to the testaments (I think one of the other posters will probably address this though).

Well read the above.

Regarding "suited their agenda", I wasn't implying anything specific, I have no opinion on how many people were involved with the writings.

Than you should avoid the use of loaded terminology.

He did rage in the temple, thankfully there were no casualties. In general Jesus appears less extreme (having never killed anyone) than one might expect of the son of God (new testament being far more moderate than the old testament).

It is also a different kind of religious text, but not without the vengeful god aspect. Again I would recommend reading not only more of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also the other parts of the Christian Scriptures beyond the Synoptic; also the Gnostic and Apocryphal.

Infidel! But seriously christianity has had quite a head start. Don't you think in several thousand years the Mormon movement won't have refined somewhat, and be similarly difficult to discount? In truth it's the existence of these modern religious organisations that primarily fuel my current musings on the evolution of religion, for better or worse.

No. We are a society that writes down everything. Unless a major event were to happen to destroy all that, people will know the history of the Mormon Church. That still doesn't apply to the evolution of Christianity. Mormonism is very, very young. Christianity evolved over centuries, and it is not a simply explained as Mormonism and Scientology.

Point taken. Reading the other posts I'm under the impression astrotheology was far less prominent in ancient culture than I've been led to believe, seems I need to read up more on that also.

Well it is a modern advent, and its main fault is interpreting the ancient with the recent. You can't use New Testament symbolism to interpret Egyptian mythology or vice versa.

GreNME

28th June 2008, 11:35 PM

Amun-Ra, sun god, considered to be king of the gods. Nut, sky god, swallowing the sun at the end of the day, giving birth to it the next morning. Shu, god of air, holding up Nut, so that the earth and the sky remain separated. Certain gods having representations in star constellations (e.g. Orion being Osiris).

The problem with those examples is that almost all of them are either outright false or completely misrepresented. "Amun-Ra" was not considered the "king of the gods" as you put it. Amun was a prime god worshipped in Thebes, while it was Ptah in Memphis and Atum in Heliopolis. Amun-Ra (just like Atum-Ra or Ra-Horakhty) is the personification of the attached god in sun-form. Numerous gods were worshiped in such a personification at some point in time (and the pharaoh Aten actually personified himself as the sun with his brief monotheistic jaunt). You are partially correct about Nut, though Apophis (Apepi) fighting with Ra was also another tale of the turning of night and day. Shu is Nut's father, and the story goes he caught Nut and Geb (the earth) having sex and separated them-- only in some imagery is he actually physically holding them apart-- and it was said that Nut and Geb continually reached for each other to have sex again. The Osiris-Orion association is very loose and was invented to placate Greek conquerors and allow Egyptian religious ritual to continue without being frowned upon by the Greeks who overthrew them.

So, are you saying that there are Mayan corollaries? Or did you just mention them together without association? If the former, please share. If the latter, why mention them at all?

However I believe my definition of astrotheology may be vastly different from your own. For me any story that derives its content from existence, alignment or movement of celestial bodies, comes under the umbrella of astrotheology. Is there a term I should be using that is better suited to those who have a more rigid definition?

You can use the term however you like, but it doesn't actually mean anything. In every single attempt to explain astrotheology I've ever seen the person explaining it cherry-picks from any given culture or civilization what it wants, ignoring the rest of the cultural and religious symbology as if they are irrelevant. How is what you're saying any different?

Yes. One can only dispute what brought about or fostered these advances in science.

You seem to be missing a significant point here. I point to quality of life and all you can dish out is scientific advances. That's simply ridiculous to claim that it is solely scientific advancement that has improved the standard of living with people. Tools and resources from scientific advancement are only part of improved quality of life, just as greater availability of disposable income and opportunity for wealth accumulation are just a part. Why are you ignoring the latter and only focusing on the former?

I contend a system where rates of interest are not at a premium to inflation can exist, and still make capital available for innovation.

You can get all that and more by moving to a strictly Muslim nation like Iran, where usury (and thus interest) is outlawed.

The projects you speak of were funded by the government, the tax system is another story altogether.

No, they aren't different, and definitely not just because you say so. Where do you think taxes go in the first place?

My university debt accumulated on a government loan, where I only repaid the inflation indexed capital. Brilliant. What fundamental reasons are there preventing this financial system from being more pervasive. I'm not against banking, I just think the system of interest (set by Federal Reserve) is damaging.

Then go live in a strict Muslim country. I actually hear Iran has beautiful scenery and a wonderful climate.

So you're in agreement that wealthy people will continue to accumulate wealth beyond the rate of inflation, without being personally involved with said wealth creation (you just arrive at that conclusion from a different angle).

No, I said that anyone can accumulate wealth at a rate beyond inflation. The problem is education (in that regard), not the system.

Slightly OT, but why should someone born into this world have to manage someone elses wealth such that it doesn't diminish.

This type of argument is tiresome. People can't control what kind of world they are born into, only what they do with their lives once born into it. The backwards justifying is pretty much useless.

They should be free to pursue their own goals. Don't get me wrong, they are free to do as they wish, but conditions are not as favourable as they could be.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

The banking crisis has really put things on the world stage, citizens deserve more stability, what's the government good for if it cannot facilitate (indirectly or otherwise) the provision of basics such as shelter.

Citizens deserve more stability that what, exactly? Even in the poor shape the American economy is in right now, it is still far more stable than the US economy of the 1800's (or earlier for other nations). So what measure are you using to come to your conclusion? No offense, but the word "utopia" (which is what you seem to describe) means literally "a place that doesn't exist" or "nowhere."

I would like you to specify, because what I know of the Moses story is quite different than what you describe.
Exodus 32:28 "And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men". Actions speak louder than words. Vengeance "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

You're conflating "vengeance" for "punishment" in your assessment. The story of Moses is one of a lawgiver, not a revenger.

You're changing the allegory by adding your own extra information here, which disregards the context of my original question and attempts to create a new context.
Yes I am, because your allegory, in my opinion, did not take into account the context of my argument.

Then you're moving goalposts in our discussion. You were using Pisces as your example, but you were asking why the conjecture should be written off. I was explaining that with extraordinary claims must come extraordinary evidence (hat-tip to Carl Sagan), and providing an example of why I was saying that. So, unless you have extraordinary evidence to back up the extraordinary claims of correlation, the obligation to take such claims as holding any serious validity declines sharply.

I also want to take a moment, potato991, and let you know: even though we are basically communicating on where we might disagree, I do appreciate your approach and the tenor of your posts. Your posts are refreshingly on-topic and you are actually discussing the subject matter and the materials, not making personal attacks or pulling bogus appeals to authority. I just wanted to say thank you for your posts, and I hope that our disagreements on the subject matter don't preclude at least a relative mutual respect for each other. :)

fullflavormenthol

28th June 2008, 11:46 PM

potato991> I would like to thank you for elevating the debate here. I think I am agreement in what GreNME is saying here. If I came across rude than I am sorry, but it is refreshing to have a straight forward and polite debate about these issues.

Nick227

29th June 2008, 07:30 AM

However I believe my definition of astrotheology may be vastly different from your own. For me any story that derives its content from existence, alignment or movement of celestial bodies, comes under the umbrella of astrotheology. Is there a term I should be using that is better suited to those who have a more rigid definition?

Hi Potato,

I think you also have to be careful here to distinguish, if possible, between how ancient man viewed things and how we view the same things now. Each culture places its own lens on history. The astrotheological symbol set, based mostly around the numbers 4, 7, and 12, is popular these days and you can look at ancient mysticism with it but it may be harder to demonstrate that in the times in question people did the same.

In addition, many of the symbols of the solar year are anyway very relevant to all human culture and not necessarily derived from the sun's movements at all. Birth / Life / a Phase of purgation or Death / Re-birth - the pattern depicted here is eternally attractive to humans. You find it as much today in Hollywood movies as in ancient myths. The sequence of events recorded of Jesus' life is archetypal. It is eternally intriguing to people and this is the reason for its prominence.

However, as I've often seen on this and other forums, once someone has the astrotheological filter firmly strapped on, all they will see anywhere is astrotheology!

Exodus 32:28 "And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men". Actions speak louder than words. Vengeance "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

I mean, mystically, as I see it, Moses is more a symbol of law, or uprightness. It's implicit in his Hebrew name - Maseh (mem, shin, heh). The numbers add to 345 - that of the Pythagorean triangle, esoterically a symbol of rectitude. Thus, it is not so much about revenge, but rather that bad results come about as a result of bad thinking and bad acting.

Jesus is more the word of God, the divine logos. He is a guide and an initiator, rather than a law-giver. See John 1 for the comparison.

Nick

potato991

30th June 2008, 02:45 AM

No. They aren't.
...
Epochs are not based on astrology or the Zodiac beyond the MODERN astrologer, and only specific to their interpretation and not that of ancient man.

So the point of contention is where does one era start and end, as opposed to the duration? I don't think the length of the great year is open to dispute (being derived by scientific measure).

Also again the 12 sign Zodiac is by all indications after the advent of Christianity.

It is believed the Dendera zodiac predated Christ. Though a fair point has been made, I had thought the zodiac went back even farther than this, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Than you should avoid the use of loaded terminology.

"Suited their agenda" could not be any more non committal as to the number of persons involved (except to say it wasn't a single person), I don't see how it can be seen to imply anything.

No. We are a society that writes down everything. Unless a major event were to happen to destroy all that, people will know the history of the Mormon Church.

Bah - yes I should have worded it better. If Mormonism sprang up at the same time as Christianity, then burned any subversive literature , it would difficult to discount today..

potato991

30th June 2008, 03:28 AM

The problem with those examples is that almost all of them are either outright false or completely misrepresented. "Amun-Ra" was not considered the "king of the gods" as you put it.

Amun-Ra was revered as king of the gods, according to encyclopaedic sources. Over time there seem to be a handful of gods given label king of the gods, to suit the times.

The Osiris-Orion association is very loose and was invented to placate Greek conquerors and allow Egyptian religious ritual to continue without being frowned upon by the Greeks who overthrew them.

This predated the birth of Christ to my knowledge, though fair enough it isn't a part of ancient Egyptian culture. Would it be right to say the zodiac infiltrated Egyptian theistic beliefs?

So, are you saying that there are Mayan corollaries? Or did you just mention them together without association? If the former, please share. If the latter, why mention them at all?

You no doubt know about the Mayan sun god Kinich-Ahau, and ought to have pre-emptively gone into detail about this :D.

You can use the term however you like, but it doesn't actually mean anything. In every single attempt to explain astrotheology I've ever seen the person explaining it cherry-picks from any given culture or civilization what it wants, ignoring the rest of the cultural and religious symbology as if they are irrelevant. How is what you're saying any different?

I never made any claims suggesting modern religion was overwhelmingly astrotheologic. I am guilty of conjecture that precursors to these modern religions could have been, although I qualified this as conjecture on posting.

Cherry picking of concepts is exactly what would happen if someone was 'borrowing' inspiration from their environment, in order to derive a religion. When I hear about Angels coming from the heavens above, I'm naturally suspicious. Why would an Angel descend from the sky, do they materialise in Earths orbit then come down to meet us? Sounds more like someone has surmised the ethereal realm exists somewhere beyond the limits of the sky, because they don't know any better. Ok that example probably isn't relevant, but I swear it seemed relevant as I was writing it..

You seem to be missing a significant point here. I point to quality of life and all you can dish out is scientific advances. That's simply ridiculous to claim that it is solely scientific advancement that has improved the standard of living with people. Tools and resources from scientific advancement are only part of improved quality of life, just as greater availability of disposable income and opportunity for wealth accumulation are just a part. Why are you ignoring the latter and only focusing on the former?

I feel you're getting bogged down in semantics, perhaps I should have stated "for all intents and purposes, science is responsible". Cultural development is something I omitted as it's a bit subjective, as it could go either way as far as improving quality of life goes. I didn't say anything about wealth accumulation as being a negative factor. Wealth accumulation is important for innovation, but does not equate to earning interest on capital. I can still accumulate wealth if I invent something new, without the system of interest. Advances in science represent the dominant causal factor of the greater availability of disposable income you mention.

You can get all that and more by moving to a strictly Muslim nation like Iran, where usury (and thus interest) is outlawed.

Or I could move to Japan, where the official interest rate hit a decade high of 0.5% last year.

No, they aren't different, and definitely not just because you say so. Where do you think taxes go in the first place?

What isn't different? The tax system and banking system of interest? Communist countries still have space programs, I'm not sure where Nasa fits in to all this.

No, I said that anyone can accumulate wealth at a rate beyond inflation.

Wealthy people happen to be a subset of 'anyone', so we're in agreement.

This type of argument is tiresome. People can't control what kind of world they are born into, only what they do with their lives once born into it. The backwards justifying is pretty much useless.

That's a terribly defeatist position. People can control what future generations are born into, and frankly that's what I'm concerned about.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

No. It was a disclaimer to prevent anyone from taking my comment literally, rather than figuratively as was intended.

Citizens deserve more stability that what, exactly? Even in the poor shape the American economy is in right now, it is still far more stable than the US economy of the 1800's (or earlier for other nations). So what measure are you using to come to your conclusion? No offense, but the word "utopia" (which is what you seem to describe) means literally "a place that doesn't exist" or "nowhere."

More stability than having housing prices rocket up by 300% (on average) in under five years, while wage growth is less than 5% per annum. Comparing the state of the economy 200 years ago has little bearing on this discussion, improvement should practically be assumed/expected, not revelled in, over such a period of time (given our advancements). If you were to run a simulation of the economy, where real wealth of each individual grew at an exponential rate, it would show it to be an unstable strategy that can only result in one outcome. This is horribly, horribly simplified, but correct in a theoretical sense.

You're conflating "vengeance" for "punishment" in your assessment. The story of Moses is one of a lawgiver, not a revenger.

I have done no such thing, that definition was lifted straight from the dictionary - you shall have to take it up with them :D. Being a lawgiver does not preclude Moses from being vengeful.

I also want to take a moment, potato991, and let you know: even though we are basically communicating on where we might disagree, I do appreciate your approach and the tenor of your posts. Your posts are refreshingly on-topic and you are actually discussing the subject matter and the materials, not making personal attacks or pulling bogus appeals to authority. I just wanted to say thank you for your posts, and I hope that our disagreements on the subject matter don't preclude at least a relative mutual respect for each other. :)

Ahh glad to see a smiley face in there. I share your sentiment. My posts are very much on-topic. Haha only kidding - no, I appreciate having well thought out responses to my posts, even though I'm going to have to be liberal with disclaimers now, so as not to be taken literally where it is not intended.

potato991

30th June 2008, 03:53 AM

In addition, many of the symbols of the solar year are anyway very relevant to all human culture and not necessarily derived from the sun's movements at all. Birth / Life / a Phase of purgation or Death / Re-birth - the pattern depicted here is eternally attractive to humans.

Yes the waters are muddied in this respect. Not knowing whether the celestial cycles are incidental to their beliefs (and the real importance is placed on the seasons etc) is difficult to know.

However, as I've often seen on this and other forums, once someone has the astrotheological filter firmly strapped on, all they will see anywhere is astrotheology!

Do you think the early scripture writers had said filter strapped on? It fits in perfectly :D

Living in Australia I should have turned my attention to Aboriginal culture for a moment. It looks to be dominated by nature (animal) based theology, though it's not without healthy doses of astrotheology.

I mean, mystically, as I see it, Moses is more a symbol of law, or uprightness. It's implicit in his Hebrew name - Maseh (mem, shin, heh). The numbers add to 345 - that of the Pythagorean triangle, esoterically a symbol of rectitude.

A Nazi zealot could write a subjectively positive piece on Hitler, discussing how he was doing the world a favour by cleansing the world of impurities, but that doesn't change the objective reality. Same for the man that beats his wife, apologising afterwards, telling her he didn't mean it and that he loves her - in his deluded mind probably accepting this as reality. This is precisely why I said actions speak louder than words. It's a shameful story involving the slaughter of innocent people, not one of justice or ethics. I am just thankful Christians don't choose to emulate this behaviour. Sadly as we all know, this is not the case for all religions.

I expect in advance to be asked 'what is an objective reality'.. It's a poor way to word it if one wants to get into semantics, but it's all I can think of for now. To refine it though, if Moses encountered Allah, and Allah attempted to destroy Moses (Moses being an infidel and all), Moses would think that was wrong. Yet Moses feels he is justified to do exactly the same thing.

Thus, it is not so much about revenge, but rather that bad results come about as a result of bad thinking and bad acting.

Agreed. In this instance Moses thinking and acting was bad, leading to bad results.

fullflavormenthol

30th June 2008, 04:08 AM

So the point of contention is where does one era start and end, as opposed to the duration? I don't think the length of the great year is open to dispute (being derived by scientific measure).

The "great year" is a modern construct, and has no meaning when looking at ancient literature; and obviously wasn't in use by the Hebrews. So again no, your are incorrect in your original statement about the Zodiac and ages. The "great year" is meaningless outside of astrological circles, and since astrology isn't a science I will dispute that the "great year" concept is based on a scientific measure. The length of the "great year" is irrelevant as it has no bearing on this debate given that it wasn't in use at the time that is being discussed.

Nick227

30th June 2008, 05:55 AM

Yes the waters are muddied in this respect. Not knowing whether the celestial cycles are incidental to their beliefs (and the real importance is placed on the seasons etc) is difficult to know.

Just to mention...something that mystics nowadays appreciate, and likely did back then, and that other commentators mostly miss these days, is that it was never really about the sun and the zodiac anyway. The sun, the moon, the planets, the astrological houses are all just symbols. What it's really about is You. This is the core of any decent mystery school, pre-Christian or otherwise. The solar symbols can provide a basis for ritual but it is not really about them so much.

Do you think the early scripture writers had said filter strapped on? It fits in perfectly :D

I doubt it personally, but I'm no expert. Mystical philosophies typically revolve around certain numbers, typically 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12.
Three of these numbers fit well into astrotheology - 4 (seasons, directions), 7 (planets) and 12 (houses) are commonly ascribed to astrological symbols. The others are frequently ascribed... 3 (the triune unity) and 5 (4 elements + spirit, or tattvas).

Astrotheology is thus useful for relating mystical philosophies that are numerically-based in this manner, because it has enough symbols in it to cover a lot of bases. Then there are other philosophies that don't revolve around numbers, and there are direct teachings. These latter two don't have much use for astrology.

It's just a matter of usefulness and economy really.

Living in Australia I should have turned my attention to Aboriginal culture for a moment. It looks to be dominated by nature (animal) based theology, though it's not without healthy doses of astrotheology.

Sounds interesting.

A Nazi zealot could write a subjectively positive piece on Hitler, discussing how he was doing the world a favour by cleansing the world of impurities, but that doesn't change the objective reality. Same for the man that beats his wife, apologising afterwards, telling her he didn't mean it and that he loves her - in his deluded mind probably accepting this as reality.

A couple of things...first we know a great deal less of the objective reality of Moses than of Hitler. Second, the biblical book of Exodus can also be viewed allegorically. The Israelites are the spiritually-developing ego; fleeing the land of psychic oppression (Egypt); taking drugs when needed to sustain its spiritual vision! (Exodus 16), and generally sticking at it until enlightenment occurs (crossing the R Jordan to the promised land).

There's a lot of symbolism in Exodus. Things aren't always what they seem on the surface. Jewish Kaballah extensively studies this, see the Zohar if you're interested - Jacob's Ladder and all that.

Nick

Hokulele

30th June 2008, 12:06 PM

Just to mention...something that mystics nowadays appreciate, and likely did back then, and that other commentators mostly miss these days, is that it was never really about the sun and the zodiac anyway. The sun, the moon, the planets, the astrological houses are all just symbols. What it's really about is You. This is the core of any decent mystery school, pre-Christian or otherwise. The solar symbols can provide a basis for ritual but it is not really about them so much.

Just a quick note that expands on this comment. Astronomy in most pre-literate societies was primarly about time-keeping, such as determining when to plant certain crops or marking the date of Passover. This was/is an important element of religious rituals, but not necessarily objects of worship or influence themselves. For example, in pre-contact Hawai'i, the priestly class used the appearance of the Pleiades (Makali'i) to mark the start of the festival season. The god associated with the festival was Lono, no relation to the asterism.

Astronomy and astrology have certainly been linked with religion, and the symbols from both definitely have applications in religion, but to state that religion is based on them would be somewhat like stating that Catholicism is based on wristwatches, as that is what is used to determine when to start the Mass.

GreNME

30th June 2008, 01:01 PM

For the sake of clarity, potato991, I'm going to move the economics parts of our discussion to the bottom of my post so that they aren't interspersed within the astrotheology parts. By doing so I mean no disrespect to you, I'm simply trying to get our conversation into a sort of flow that can be followed more easily and sort of match it up with the order inside the film.

Amun-Ra was revered as king of the gods, according to encyclopaedic sources. Over time there seem to be a handful of gods given label king of the gods, to suit the times.

I'd be careful with such distinctions from encyclopedia sources. As I said, the god Amun was worshipped as a major god of Thebes, and depending on which kingdom you're talking about (which set of pharaoh's were ruling) he may have played a dominant role in the theology of the day. However, Amun-Ra is only one aspect of the god Amun and was not necessarily the prime aspect. Thus, my contention is with considering Amun as some sort of king of the gods fully as an Egyptian religious aspect. It simply was not so. To the people of Heliopolis Amun was pretty much considered secondary to Atum, even when the ruling pharaoh held to Theban theology; to the people of Memphis continued to hold Ptah as most high, even when the ruling pharaoh was of Theban or Heliopolitan persuasion. This distinction is important when looking at Egyptial religious history, because it shows that even though the government was monolithic and concetrated to its center, the religion of the land was in many ways not so. A number of similar names were shared between the different religious practices, but that shouldn't be confused with the idea that the Egyptians all worshipped the same.

The Osiris-Orion association is very loose and was invented to placate Greek conquerors and allow Egyptian religious ritual to continue without being frowned upon by the Greeks who overthrew them.
This predated the birth of Christ to my knowledge, though fair enough it isn't a part of ancient Egyptian culture. Would it be right to say the zodiac infiltrated Egyptian theistic beliefs?

I don't think it would, from my personal and academic perspective. Instead the Greek ideas of religion were superimposed over the pre-existing Egyptian ones in order for the Egyptian people to accomodate and cohabitate with Greeks. The Egyptians did this because the people welcomed the conquering Alexander (and later pharaoh Ptolemy Soter) as saviors of the land. Even given that Egyptian theology was considered a curiosity by Greek writers who mentioned it, and the later Roman writings on Egyptian religion and culture were colored by the Hellenistic musings on Egypt.

You no doubt know about the Mayan sun god Kinich-Ahau, and ought to have pre-emptively gone into detail about this :D.

I know a little of Kinich-Ahau. He was a sun god. The only similarities I can think of between this god and any from across the Atlantic is the representation in some forms as a bird of fire (not unlike a phoenix). Other than that about the only chain of similarity I can imagine you could draw would be historical comparisons to Quetzalcoatl, whom many religious sources have (mistakenly) attempted to tie in with Jesus, most notably within some Mormon research (FARMS is notorious for this). However, it always struck me as a curiosity that these religious groups worked so hard at pinning the likes of Quetzalcoatl to their Christian faith, but never seem to try to tie in more regional deities like Xipe Totec who was considered a life-death-rebirth god (of nature) to the Aztecs-- he most likely gets left out because of his habit for flaying and wearing the skins of people. ;)

You can use the term however you like, but it doesn't actually mean anything. In every single attempt to explain astrotheology I've ever seen the person explaining it cherry-picks from any given culture or civilization what it wants, ignoring the rest of the cultural and religious symbology as if they are irrelevant. How is what you're saying any different?
I never made any claims suggesting modern religion was overwhelmingly astrotheologic. I am guilty of conjecture that precursors to these modern religions could have been, although I qualified this as conjecture on posting.

Cherry picking of concepts is exactly what would happen if someone was 'borrowing' inspiration from their environment, in order to derive a religion. When I hear about Angels coming from the heavens above, I'm naturally suspicious. Why would an Angel descend from the sky, do they materialise in Earths orbit then come down to meet us? Sounds more like someone has surmised the ethereal realm exists somewhere beyond the limits of the sky, because they don't know any better. Ok that example probably isn't relevant, but I swear it seemed relevant as I was writing it..

I understand what you're getting at, but what I'm saying in reply is that you seem to be working backwards in your comparisons instead of providing a chain of influence that could be historically or academically traced. In this I am saying that what you are doing with your guesswork is a process similar to numerology, starting with a number as a goal and finding multiple ways to tie desirable aspects to it by using different combinations of creative math to reach that number.

This, by the way, is why I qualify astrotheology as a New Age pseudoscience. It inherently relies on subjective points of view with a predetermined assumption that only qualifies what could subjectively support those conclusions (in theory). If astrotheology was simply a religion where its proponents were claiming a matter of faith I wouldn't really be of a mind to argue its consistent errancy when it's brought up. However, its proponents so far that I've seen in print and (with this Zeitgeist movie) film are attempting to portray it as an historically accurate method of scholarly study. This is just not realistically accurate in any way-- astrotheology has yet to follow the steps of scientific rigor to become accepted as a form of scientific academic study, and the only excuse given by two writers I've had access to so far as to why this hasn't happened is a complex and unrealistic conspiracy theory.

As to your example about the sky: I can see the relevance, but I propose that you're skipping some important perspective. Mankind has consistently placed its gods out of conceivable reach, whether it's the sky or on the clouds or underground, in the sea, or atop remote unclimbable mountains. It tends to consistently happen that gods inhabit locations where man can possibly look but not touch. It's only been very recent thar man could touch the sky, and within that time our gods have (predictably) moved from the sky to space to a completely immaterial location that apparently can't be quantified. Deities always tend to be just out of reach, on the periphery, only slightly outside of where our rational comprehension can conceivably take us.

However, this doesn't mean modern religions qualify as being based on astro-trans-dimensional-theology, does it? Actually, maybe I'll coin that for myself: astro-trans-dimensional-theology. Not bad, but I'll probably have to shave it down to something that rolls better off the tongue.

You're conflating "vengeance" for "punishment" in your assessment. The story of Moses is one of a lawgiver, not a revenger.
I have done no such thing, that definition was lifted straight from the dictionary - you shall have to take it up with them :D. Being a lawgiver does not preclude Moses from being vengeful.

Well, you seem to grasp the English language well enough, so I hope I don't have to explain why I used the term 'conflating' instead of 'mixing up' when describing what you did. Vengeance can be considered a form of punishment, though it doesn't define punishment. Neither does it define the chapter from which you took the passage you quoted. The full chapter describes the people behaving unjustly when Moses is to present the laws ostensibly given to him by their god, and the passage you cite is describing part of the punishment.

Stop me if you heard this one: Moses is very likely a conglomeration of the stories of Sargon the Great (of Sumer) and Hammurabi (of Babylon), both of whom are known historically and culturally as law-givers. In the case of Sargon, he's also known as the one who united Sumer into a strong empire. However, there is also evidence that Ur-Nammu holds some inspirational basis for the laws set forth by Moses, as he (or, rather, his son Shulgi, who is said to have put them to writing) laid out legal codes for the Sumerian people to follow.

In this astrotheology isn't unique in identifying Sargon (or even Hammurabi) with Moses, yet astrotheology takes a similar path to Theosophy in attempting to attribute Egyptian Book of the Dead passages to Mosaic law, when much closer examples like those of Hammurabi and Ur-Nammu form a more realistic archaeological basis for conception. There's no evidence or need to point hundreds miles west to Egypt for the basis behind Mosaic law when much closer examples exist within historical record and archaeologically proven connections (because Israel has a long history dealing with Babylon and Sumer).

And now, the economy.

I feel you're getting bogged down in semantics, perhaps I should have stated "for all intents and purposes, science is responsible". Cultural development is something I omitted as it's a bit subjective, as it could go either way as far as improving quality of life goes. I didn't say anything about wealth accumulation as being a negative factor. Wealth accumulation is important for innovation, but does not equate to earning interest on capital. I can still accumulate wealth if I invent something new, without the system of interest. Advances in science represent the dominant causal factor of the greater availability of disposable income you mention.

I'd like for you to quantify that last sentence, because I'm convinced you can't do so without invoking the economic system within which the advances occurred. You're ignoring the methods of wealth accumulation and focusing too much on interest of capital, and nowhere has anyone argued that the economy or economic development exists solely on interest of capital (quite the opposite, since gaining interest is simply a symptom and not a cause).

Or I could move to Japan, where the official interest rate hit a decade high of 0.5% last year.

And you would be spending a currency that is heavily pegged to the US dollar, which is why I mentioned Iran instead (who isn't).

No, they aren't different, and definitely not just because you say so. Where do you think taxes go in the first place?
What isn't different? The tax system and banking system of interest? Communist countries still have space programs, I'm not sure where Nasa fits in to all this.

I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that organizations like NASA and infrastructure programs connecting one end of the country to the other through roadways and railways were built and are maintained through taxes paid. NASA fits into this as being the foremost space program on the planet, yet being paid for by the economic system that movies like Zeitgeist are so vehemently against. In that, what I'm basically saying is a twist on an older saying: capitalism, especially American capitalism, is the worst form of economy... after all the other ones.

No, I said that anyone can accumulate wealth at a rate beyond inflation.
Wealthy people happen to be a subset of 'anyone', so we're in agreement.

But we're not in agreement, it seems. You're stopping at wealthy people, and I'm pointing out that the system is far more populist than you are acknowledging.

This type of argument is tiresome. People can't control what kind of world they are born into, only what they do with their lives once born into it. The backwards justifying is pretty much useless.
That's a terribly defeatist position. People can control what future generations are born into, and frankly that's what I'm concerned about.

That's not defeatist at all. In fact, I tend to be pretty optimistic about it-- after all, I'm one of those people who have to make my own fortune just the same as anyone else. I would argue that resigning one's self to the idea that accumulating wealth is a zero-sum game where the wealthy have already one is rather pessimistic. Perhaps that's not the message you are meaning to convey, but that is the message I'm getting from you. To be fair, though, your assessment isn't nearly as pessimistic as that of the movie Zeitgeist, which is pessimistic to an extreme degree.

They should be free to pursue their own goals. Don't get me wrong, they are free to do as they wish, but conditions are not as favourable as they could be.
Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?
No. It was a disclaimer to prevent anyone from taking my comment literally, rather than figuratively as was intended.

But even figuratively your statement is contradicting itself. You state that people should be free to pursue their own goals, and then acknowledge that they are free to do as they wish. What you didn't include is that the very freedom they have to do as they wish includes the ability to pursue their own goals. The problem is that their goals may not be of a nature that is fiscally sound or responsible, and in such cases there are consequences. It might be someone's goal to be a professional paintball player or a first seat at the New York philharmonic, but just because those are their goals doesn't automatically qualify them to have those goals. In order to achieve those goals they require the education, training, and practice to be as qualified (or more) as others who also share in such goals. The same concept applies to wealth accumulation, by the way-- without proper education, training, and practice in accumulating wealth a person can't be expected to automatically be given wealth simply because they decide they want it. This is actually the number one reason why people who win very large prizes or lotteries have a high probability of losing their money or going broke very quickly: lack of understanding how to use money (and wealth) responsibly.

Citizens deserve more stability that what, exactly? Even in the poor shape the American economy is in right now, it is still far more stable than the US economy of the 1800's (or earlier for other nations). So what measure are you using to come to your conclusion? No offense, but the word "utopia" (which is what you seem to describe) means literally "a place that doesn't exist" or "nowhere."
More stability than having housing prices rocket up by 300% (on average) in under five years, while wage growth is less than 5% per annum. Comparing the state of the economy 200 years ago has little bearing on this discussion, improvement should practically be assumed/expected, not revelled in, over such a period of time (given our advancements). If you were to run a simulation of the economy, where real wealth of each individual grew at an exponential rate, it would show it to be an unstable strategy that can only result in one outcome. This is horribly, horribly simplified, but correct in a theoretical sense.

You say that improvement should be assumed, but you also say that the state of the economy 200 years ago has little bearing on the discussion. Are you saying that we should only look at short-term comparisons and immediate cost/benefit analyses? If so I am going to have to vehemently disagree with you on that mark, and argue that such short-term assessments are exactly what has led to the recent spikes in the prices of oil and the housing bubble with the US market. The very reason taking a long view on the economy with regard to market prices, quality of life, and economic stability is the most accurate of measurements is because it can look at far more factors and consequences of actions over periods of time, assess where beneficial and detrimental decisions were made, and adjust accordingly for the future. Not to get too overly political on the subject because this isn't the politics subforum, but this lack of taking a longer economic assessment in our markets is exactly where the current US administration has failed the economy, aiming instead for quick appeasement and vague promises to try to fix problems that are far more complex and entangled for such measures to work.

As to the simulation you propose: that's all well and good that you theorize instability, but your parameters (wealth growing exponentially) are unrealistic and you assume a rigid and inflexible system. Considering neither of those things represent the reality of the economy or banking, I'm not seeing the validity of what you're arguing.

Ahh glad to see a smiley face in there. I share your sentiment. My posts are very much on-topic. Haha only kidding - no, I appreciate having well thought out responses to my posts, even though I'm going to have to be liberal with disclaimers now, so as not to be taken literally where it is not intended.

Well, disclaimers or not I do hope you feel welcome posting here. While we may not agree on our conclusions you do seem to have thought out the subjects you're speaking on, and for that alone I can say I have respect for you.

GreNME

30th June 2008, 01:06 PM

Just a quick note that expands on this comment. Astronomy in most pre-literate societies was primarly about time-keeping, such as determining when to plant certain crops or marking the date of Passover. This was/is an important element of religious rituals, but not necessarily objects of worship or influence themselves. For example, in pre-contact Hawai'i, the priestly class used the appearance of the Pleiades (Makali'i) to mark the start of the festival season. The god associated with the festival was Lono, no relation to the asterism.

Astronomy and astrology have certainly been linked with religion, and the symbols from both definitely have applications in religion, but to state that religion is based on them would be somewhat like stating that Catholicism is based on wristwatches, as that is what is used to determine when to start the Mass.

To add to Hokulele's comments, it should be noted that, especially within Egyptian history, the astronomy that was used was primarily for agricultural purposes. Unlike Mesopotamia (and Greece/Rome), whose floodplains were less regular, the Nile worked like clockwork and the stars were used in predicting when the floods and subsequent prime planting season would begin. In a way their astronomy was very Earth-centric in motivation, which is another way the astrological arguments tend to lose steam (and validity). Basically, it would be a heavy misnomer to attribute astronomy between cultures as used for the same reason.

potato991

2nd July 2008, 06:08 AM

The "great year" is meaningless outside of astrological circles, and since astrology isn't a science I will dispute that the "great year" concept is based on a scientific measure.

The Earths axis wobbles like that of a spinning top (thus displacing observed star positions), and the time taken for that wobble to complete a full revolution is called the great year. Computer simulations have provided a best guess as to the duration of the great year as 257 centuries.

The length of the "great year" is irrelevant as it has no bearing on this debate given that it wasn't in use at the time that is being discussed.

Unless you can provide a reason as to why the Dendera zodiac cannot be trusted (to put an estimated time on the emergence of the Zodiac, pre-dating Christ), I'm going to have to disagree. I will take on board that in all probability, it wasn't around during the time of Moses (old testament).

potato991

2nd July 2008, 06:35 AM

I know a little of Kinich-Ahau. He was a sun god. The only similarities I can think of between this god and any from across the Atlantic is the representation in some forms as a bird of fire (not unlike a phoenix). Other than that about the only chain of similarity I can imagine you could draw would be historical comparisons to Quetzalcoatl, whom many religious sources have (mistakenly) attempted to tie in with Jesus, most notably within some Mormon research (FARMS is notorious for this).

Sorry I wasn't intending to suggest there has been cross continental fertilization between religions, just that they Cherry picked elements from the cosmos.

I understand what you're getting at, but what I'm saying in reply is that you seem to be working backwards in your comparisons instead of providing a chain of influence that could be historically or academically traced. In this I am saying that what you are doing with your guesswork is a process similar to numerology, starting with a number as a goal and finding multiple ways to tie desirable aspects to it by using different combinations of creative math to reach that number.

I can see the dangers of retrofitting evidence to suit the theory, as is done for landscape patterns on Mars etc. My thinking is also influenced (perhaps ultimately in a negative way) by observations of contemporary beliefs. I wonder what ratio of people today place any kind of significance on astrotheology - but in a more general sense, assign mystical properties to anything beyond their realm of knowledge. Armed with modern tools of science people still choose to believe in bollocks, when the odds are so against such beliefs having substance. What are the chances of this same group of people having rational thought when you take away the grounding(??) influence of science.

Deities always tend to be just out of reach, on the periphery, only slightly outside of where our rational comprehension can conceivably take us.

Part of the reason I find the notion of astrotheological influence favourable, it would have been one of the great unknowns throughout the ages. Though as you rightly point out, one needs evidence over conjecture to give any real weight to this idea.

However, this doesn't mean modern religions qualify as being based on astro-trans-dimensional-theology, does it?

Hmm trans-dimensional theology, I think you're onto something, material vs spiritual and all.. Zeitgeist II, perhaps?

Neither does it define the chapter from which you took the passage you quoted. The full chapter describes the people behaving unjustly when Moses is to present the laws ostensibly given to him by their god, and the passage you cite is describing part of the punishment.

Certainly that is the story the writer was trying to convey. For those who don't subscribe to the same moral framework, the story is perceived to be quite different. Someone impartial may well consider it as "The lead ape disappeared into the mountain. On his return, those apes who sided with him were instructed to kill the remaining apes. It remains unclear why those apes were killed, as there were no observable hostile actions perpetrated by them towards the lead ape, or indeed any ape."

Stop me if you heard this one: Moses is very likely a conglomeration of the stories of Sargon the Great (of Sumer) and Hammurabi (of Babylon)

No I haven't read any material on that, though I expect I will when time permits.

I'd like for you to quantify that last sentence, because I'm convinced you can't do so without invoking the economic system within which the advances occurred.
...
NASA fits into this as being the foremost space program on the planet, yet being paid for by the economic system that movies like Zeitgeist are so vehemently against. In that, what I'm basically saying is a twist on an older saying: capitalism, especially American capitalism, is the worst form of economy.

Oh no!! It appears I've come across as some kind of anti-capitalist. My gripe isn't with capitalism, I think it's about the best system we have on offer right now. I think individuals should be rewarded for their efforts. My problem is with lending practices. I especially have a problem with locking people (intentionally or otherwise) into high interest loans - they end up spending a disproportionate amount of time building up someone elses wealth. For the same reason I question why miracle religious healers are allowed to broadcast on TV and spread their nonsense, I question why we sanction the fleecing of less financially savvy individuals (esp. elderly) through economic devices.

Agreed that intelligence has a lot to do with financial hardships people experience, unfortunately not everyone has the requisite level of intelligence to protect themselves from the sharks that are out there. If people want to play the game it's a different story. But if people are just trying to subsist, things are pretty rough when basics such as housing (ownership or rental) start to become strongly unaffordable. I think the volatility we see is not only damaging for individual interests, but advancement of society in general. Whether there is a better solution remains to be proven, but we should at least be looking.

But even figuratively your statement is contradicting itself. You state that people should be free to pursue their own goals, and then acknowledge that they are free to do as they wish. What you didn't include is that the very freedom they have to do as they wish includes the ability to pursue their own goals. The problem is that their goals may not be of a nature that is fiscally sound or responsible, and in such cases there are consequences. It might be someone's goal to be a professional paintball player or a first seat at the New York philharmonic, but just because those are their goals doesn't automatically qualify them to have those goals. In order to achieve those goals they require the education, training, and practice to be as qualified (or more) as others who also share in such goals. The same concept applies to wealth accumulation, by the way-- without proper education, training, and practice in accumulating wealth a person can't be expected to automatically be given wealth simply because they decide they want it. This is actually the number one reason why people who win very large prizes or lotteries have a high probability of losing their money or going broke very quickly: lack of understanding how to use money (and wealth) responsibly

Sounds like I came across as quite the hippy :). Freedom for me still means you may need to take that job you're really not that keen on, in order to pay the bills. It also means being able to do an honest days work and actually get ahead, not have all your income gobbled up in interest repayments. Though one of the first things that needs to be changed is access to easy credit, as clearly people aren't capable of working out what a manageable level of debt is. If we didn't allow interest only loans, or loans with stupidly low capital repayment requirements, it would a long way in preventing this build up of debt that will cripple so many. In such a scenario, I might not even have much to complain about when it comes to banks :D. But if credit wasn't easily available, where would all the investment money have gone..?

You say that improvement should be assumed, but you also say that the state of the economy 200 years ago has little bearing on the discussion. Are you saying that we should only look at short-term comparisons and immediate cost/benefit analyses?
...
Not to get too overly political on the subject because this isn't the politics subforum, but this lack of taking a longer economic assessment in our markets is exactly where the current US administration has failed the economy, aiming instead for quick appeasement and vague promises to try to fix problems that are far more complex and entangled for such measures to work.

First I need to correct my previous post, I said 300% growth in housing prices, when I meant prices are 3x what they were 5 years back (200% growth in Perth, where I lived a few years ago).
Long term economic trends are important, but are invariably positive, which is why I said it's assumed. Thus short term comparisons are important insofar as identifying volatility, which is perhaps most destructive to households. I'm led to believe the recent housing boom is the largest in history (not just Australia, but pretty much worldwide). The combination of easy and cheap credit have contributed significantly to this. Some would say that contradicts my position on cheap credit, the cheap credit being part of the problem. Maybe so, but it's ultimately the (more) expensive credit that screws people over. I don't know what the solution is, I just see the problem, and am hopeful some clever bastard can come up with a better way.. capitalism 2.0.

Galileo

2nd July 2008, 09:00 AM

Its fun seeing the desire to debunk conflict with the desire of atheism. Quite a clash here.

We know Jesus existed because Saul of Tarsus says in his letter to the Galations that he met with Jesus' brother James.

Zeitgeist is a kick-ass film. My favorite parts were the sections on Sargon of Akkad and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

GreNME

2nd July 2008, 10:30 PM

Sorry I wasn't intending to suggest there has been cross continental fertilization between religions, just that they Cherry picked elements from the cosmos.

I fail to see how you pointed out a cosmic element in any of those examples, save for inadvertently hitting the one about Osiris and Orion without providing context (hint: the "toe-star" from the pyramid texts is where the association is based). Regardless, none of those examples are connected to each other through any real means and none translate to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other modern religion.

I can see the dangers of retrofitting evidence to suit the theory, as is done for landscape patterns on Mars etc. My thinking is also influenced (perhaps ultimately in a negative way) by observations of contemporary beliefs. I wonder what ratio of people today place any kind of significance on astrotheology - but in a more general sense, assign mystical properties to anything beyond their realm of knowledge. Armed with modern tools of science people still choose to believe in bollocks, when the odds are so against such beliefs having substance. What are the chances of this same group of people having rational thought when you take away the grounding(??) influence of science.

I'm not sure where the relevance is that you're seeking. As has been said: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Yet it still remains technology and not magic. The same principle applies to many of the wonders of science.

Part of the reason I find the notion of astrotheological influence favourable, it would have been one of the great unknowns throughout the ages. Though as you rightly point out, one needs evidence over conjecture to give any real weight to this idea.

Well, regardless of how cool it might be if someone could tie everything together in a neat little box, hoping doesn't make it so. If wishes were fishes we'd all cast our nets.

Hmm trans-dimensional theology, I think you're onto something, material vs spiritual and all.. Zeitgeist II, perhaps?

Zeitgeist II: The Electric Bugaloo :)

Regarding Moses:Certainly that is the story the writer was trying to convey. For those who don't subscribe to the same moral framework, the story is perceived to be quite different. Someone impartial may well consider it as "The lead ape disappeared into the mountain. On his return, those apes who sided with him were instructed to kill the remaining apes. It remains unclear why those apes were killed, as there were no observable hostile actions perpetrated by them towards the lead ape, or indeed any ape."

Well, that's a very faux-objectivist way to look at it, but it ignores context and culture to understand what was being written. I'm not claiming it's excusable and would agree that it seemed a harsh punishment to apply, but since we're not trying Moses for murder I'm less concerned with whether it's acceptable in modern legal terms and more concerned with acquiring proper anthropological context.

Oh no!! It appears I've come across as some kind of anti-capitalist. My gripe isn't with capitalism, I think it's about the best system we have on offer right now.

Oh goodness, I seriously hope you misquoted me to be funny and not because you are unaware of the reference. I'd hate to think that I didn't properly convey the joke first applied by Winston Churchill (http://wais.stanford.edu/Democracy/democracy_DemocracyAndChurchill(090503).html) well enough to be understood.

I think individuals should be rewarded for their efforts.

The world is not like grade school: you don't get points for effort, only results; life is not fair, and you often have to learn to adjust.

My problem is with lending practices. I especially have a problem with locking people (intentionally or otherwise) into high interest loans - they end up spending a disproportionate amount of time building up someone elses wealth. For the same reason I question why miracle religious healers are allowed to broadcast on TV and spread their nonsense, I question why we sanction the fleecing of less financially savvy individuals (esp. elderly) through economic devices.

The quick response I'd have to the first part of what you say is that people who can't afford it should avoid getting into high-interest loans. There's more complexity than that but the reality is that nine times of ten a high-interest debt hole could have been avoided with greater fiscal responsibility on the part of the one in debt, though I would agree that transparency and being up-front about costs are a problem with lenders (and currently the source of the credit crisis in the US, in my opinion).

Agreed that intelligence has a lot to do with financial hardships people experience, unfortunately not everyone has the requisite level of intelligence to protect themselves from the sharks that are out there. If people want to play the game it's a different story. But if people are just trying to subsist, things are pretty rough when basics such as housing (ownership or rental) start to become strongly unaffordable. I think the volatility we see is not only damaging for individual interests, but advancement of society in general. Whether there is a better solution remains to be proven, but we should at least be looking.

Well, firstly I would disagree that home ownership is some kind of basic right, and I would even go so far as to say the concept is at the heart of the imperialist expansionism of old (claiming land in an "I saw it first" manner) as well as a few flawed economic paradigms of today. However, that's material that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and is more social and political in nature.

Sounds like I came across as quite the hippy :). Freedom for me still means you may need to take that job you're really not that keen on, in order to pay the bills. It also means being able to do an honest days work and actually get ahead, not have all your income gobbled up in interest repayments.

I'm afraid you must have misunderstood what I was saying. You see, as far as I'm concerned personally, one can pursue a liberal arts degree if they wish but has unrealistic expectations if they think they are going to be as successful as someone who pursues a business management or an engineering degree. If they want to be more successful that the mean (or the average, take your pick) with a liberal arts degree then they are going to either need to have extensive skills outside of their degree field or are going to have to be able to perform better than most of their peers in the real world. That's not a rule I made up out of thin air, that's how the modern job market works.

Though one of the first things that needs to be changed is access to easy credit, as clearly people aren't capable of working out what a manageable level of debt is. If we didn't allow interest only loans, or loans with stupidly low capital repayment requirements, it would a long way in preventing this build up of debt that will cripple so many. In such a scenario, I might not even have much to complain about when it comes to banks :D. But if credit wasn't easily available, where would all the investment money have gone..?

The only flaw I see there is that it would require an assumption of good faith between the creditor and the creditee, which I find to be untenable in today's world. The only way I could see regulating such a system would be to make defaulting on credit a crime, which I would find incredibly detestable. Not only that, but it would once again tip the balance of power over to the creditors.

First I need to correct my previous post, I said 300% growth in housing prices, when I meant prices are 3x what they were 5 years back (200% growth in Perth, where I lived a few years ago).
Long term economic trends are important, but are invariably positive, which is why I said it's assumed. Thus short term comparisons are important insofar as identifying volatility, which is perhaps most destructive to households. I'm led to believe the recent housing boom is the largest in history (not just Australia, but pretty much worldwide). The combination of easy and cheap credit have contributed significantly to this. Some would say that contradicts my position on cheap credit, the cheap credit being part of the problem. Maybe so, but it's ultimately the (more) expensive credit that screws people over. I don't know what the solution is, I just see the problem, and am hopeful some clever bastard can come up with a better way.. capitalism 2.0.

I think you're missing the importance of long-term comparisons in relation to short-term ones. Allow me to give you an example: in the world of warfare, the introduction of helmets correlated directly (in a causal manner) to the number of soldiers who began showing up in hospitals with head injuries. Looking at the numbers in the short term one might come to the conclusion that the introduction of helmets on the battlefield meant that more soldiers were being injured by the helmets and thus the helmets were unsafe for our soldiers. However, comparing the numbers in a long-term manner in relation to previous battles without helmets shows that the increase in the number of injuries was because the helmets were preventing casualties in the battles due to damage being deflected (by the helmets) that would normally kill the soldiers. Similar numbers appeared for the introduction of body armor in modern warfare, by the way. In essence, the short-term comparisons would have had soldiers going into battle less equipped and with a higher probability for dying, while the helmets and body armor in reality was saving the lives of more soldiers by preventing injuries that would normally kill them.

I could provide other examples ranging from vaccines to water flouridation to seatbelt requirements in automobiles. In every case, short term numbers are deceptive and prone to mistaken assumptions while applying long-term comparisons provided evidence of benefit very clearly. This is why movies like Zeitgeist constantly focus so heavily on the 20th century (especially 1913) as a talking point for their conspiracy theories, because if one continues going backward through the economic history the evidence of increases in availability of personal wealth for more people and greater opportunities for wealth accumulation by the lower and middle classes-- and, heck, even the growth of a middle class in general, which is a sign of economic stability and growth-- then the conspiracy theories about the economy in general (and even banking in specific) begin to lose their credibility.

GreNME

2nd July 2008, 10:34 PM

Its fun seeing the desire to debunk conflict with the desire of atheism. Quite a clash here.

I'm not seeing the clash you're envisioning. Care to explain it a little more?

We know Jesus existed because Saul of Tarsus says in his letter to the Galations that he met with Jesus' brother James.

Is that a joke?

Zeitgeist is a kick-ass film. My favorite parts were the sections on Sargon of Akkad and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The information on Sargon and Gilgamesh covered in the film barely fills a couple of paragraphs and makes up a fraction of a percent of the whole film. There were literally two one- or two-sentence references collectively. Exactly what did you find so interesting about them?

fullflavormenthol

3rd July 2008, 12:55 AM

The Earths axis wobbles like that of a spinning top (thus displacing observed star positions), and the time taken for that wobble to complete a full revolution is called the great year. Computer simulations have provided a best guess as to the duration of the great year as 257 centuries.

Not the same thing as you are trying to argue. I would also like you to look into this outside of astrology circles. The meaning is different, and there is no significance to ancient man; because you still have provided any evidence that they observed this. Right now you're redefining terms and moving goalposts hoping to create a "got'cha moment". The point you are trying to merge definitions of "the great year" to create the illusion of a scientific basis for the astrological definition of the term. Not working. Again, it isn't science as you are arguing it.

Also, why isn't there a great century? If the zodiac had been constantly observed for thousands of years with so much significance, than why is there not a great century? This is just for fun, and isn't a gotcha. The Earth revolves around the sun, but what about the sun? The great year, astrological ages...that stuff is modern. Ancient man didn't calculate that stuff, because if ancient man did than he would have realized that none of the constellations are in the same place. Because the solar system itself is moving. You would have to calculate a great century to account for this.

Unless you can provide a reason as to why the Dendera zodiac cannot be trusted (to put an estimated time on the emergence of the Zodiac, pre-dating Christ), I'm going to have to disagree. I will take on board that in all probability, it wasn't around during the time of Moses (old testament).

Well the problem is that I don't have to prove a negative. It is really upon you to prove its use before Jesus and in the Hebrew culture. You are merely throwing out a zodiac, the inscription that we do have mentions Nero btw, and saying "got'cha!". Again show me where this was used by the Hebrews? Show me the significance in Egyptian culture beyond appeasing the conquering Romans? The burden is on you.

potato991

4th July 2008, 10:52 PM

Well, regardless of how cool it might be if someone could tie everything together in a neat little box, hoping doesn't make it so.

It's hardly as if a theory of everything that has been proposed. If there is a sun God in religion, there is no reason to suggest the inspiration comes from anything bar the sun itself. Indirect or otherwise, the sun itself inspired the deity, I'm not sure where 'hoping it is so' comes into play. There are many deities based on other worldly phenomena, Christianity looks to avoid this style of personification, instead preferring the trans-dimensional (ethereal) aspect you mentioned.

Well, that's a very faux-objectivist way to look at it, but it ignores context and culture to understand what was being written.

I doubt one could provide a much more objective description of the events (accepting there is no such thing as perfect objectivity). Context and culture is the very cause of the subjective skew. Slavery was ok by cultural standards, a third party observer with no knowledge of the context and culture would be better equipped to see it for what it was.

I'm less concerned with whether it's acceptable in modern legal terms and more concerned with acquiring proper anthropological context.

This doesn't change a thing. It merely reflects the limited ethical faculties of the author. I'm sure the same will happen in a few centuries, people reflecting on how the world used to sit on the sidelines while nations of people starved.

Oh goodness, I seriously hope you misquoted me to be funny and not because you are unaware of the reference.

Misquoted? I was unaware of the source of the reference, but I've heard it several times in various forms. I fear I'm unaware of my faux pas in this instance.

The world is not like grade school: you don't get points for effort, only results; life is not fair, and you often have to learn to adjust.

That's all I meant. You work, the results of which (fruits of that labour) should available to that person. If they're not, that's part of where life is not fair kicks into play, which I would hope to minimise.

Well, firstly I would disagree that home ownership is some kind of basic right,

I agree, it's just the shelter that is a basic right (rental prices tend to follow housing prices).

I'm afraid you must have misunderstood what I was saying. You see, as far as I'm concerned personally, one can pursue a liberal arts degree if they wish but has unrealistic expectations if they think they are going to be as successful as someone who pursues a business management or an engineering degree. If they want to be more successful that the mean (or the average, take your pick) with a liberal arts degree then they are going to either need to have extensive skills outside of their degree field or are going to have to be able to perform better than most of their peers in the real world. That's not a rule I made up out of thin air, that's how the modern job market works.

I seem to have misunderstood. What you outlined there mirrors my own beliefs. I believe a lot of people perceive this as (unjust) inequality, but I don't see any way to mediate the differences in an equitable or fair manner.

potato991

4th July 2008, 10:55 PM

Its fun seeing the desire to debunk conflict with the desire of atheism. Quite a clash here.

I'm glad you're enjoying it :D.

I'm yet to find someone who desires to be an atheist. I would have to point out the folly of their ways - after all, what rewards does atheism offer over faith in God??

We know Jesus existed because Saul of Tarsus says in his letter to the Galations that he met with Jesus' brother James.

Oh, ok. I was hoping someone could definitively clear up the question of Jesus' existence, thanks.

potato991

4th July 2008, 11:03 PM

there is no significance to ancient man; because you still have provided any evidence that they observed this.

This is fair enough, I've already stated as much.
Though a fair point has been made, I had thought the zodiac went back even farther than this, which doesn't seem to be the case.

The point you are trying to merge definitions of "the great year" to create the illusion of a scientific basis for the astrological definition of the term.

What is the difference between the definitions, in years? Excepting margin of error, they look to be the same.

Well the problem is that I don't have to prove a negative. It is really upon you to prove its use before Jesus and in the Hebrew culture. You are merely throwing out a zodiac, the inscription that we do have mentions Nero btw, and saying "got'cha!". Again show me where this was used by the Hebrews? Show me the significance in Egyptian culture beyond appeasing the conquering Romans? The burden is on you.

Well the point you threw out there is the zodiac didn't exist pre-Christ (new testament). It was used prior to Jesus to create the Dendera zodiac, I don't know what more you want. If you disagree with the conclusions made (associations drawn between Jesus and the zodiac), that is fine, but to rule them out citing the concept of the zodiac didn't exist seems a bit extreme.

GreNME

5th July 2008, 12:13 AM

It's hardly as if a theory of everything that has been proposed. If there is a sun God in religion, there is no reason to suggest the inspiration comes from anything bar the sun itself. Indirect or otherwise, the sun itself inspired the deity, I'm not sure where 'hoping it is so' comes into play. There are many deities based on other worldly phenomena, Christianity looks to avoid this style of personification, instead preferring the trans-dimensional (ethereal) aspect you mentioned.

You're mixing up all of the separate elements you mentioned into one conglomerate that is not the sum of the parts you originally cited. For example, as I pointed out Amun is not a sun god, nor does putting Amun in the personification of Ra turn Amun into a sun god (quite the opposite, actually). Also, Kinich-Ahau isn't even a major god in the Mayan list of gods, though he isn't necessarily minor either (he's mostly regarded as a father to another god in records I know of). Neither of these, nor any of the other examples you gave, display the cultures basing their religion on the natural phenomenon, but rather acknowledging the natural phenomenon as aspects of their religion (which is contrary to claims made by astrotheology).

Well, that's a very faux-objectivist way to look at it, but it ignores context and culture to understand what was being written.
I doubt one could provide a much more objective description of the events (accepting there is no such thing as perfect objectivity). Context and culture is the very cause of the subjective skew. Slavery was ok by cultural standards, a third party observer with no knowledge of the context and culture would be better equipped to see it for what it was.

That's an assertion I find ridiculous, and is incorrect in every conceivable way as someone who studies history in terms of anthropology. What you did was basically redefine an ancient story using modern moral structure based on your own personal (subjective) perspective. That is exactly the antithesis of objectivity.

This doesn't change a thing. It merely reflects the limited ethical faculties of the author. I'm sure the same will happen in a few centuries, people reflecting on how the world used to sit on the sidelines while nations of people starved.

More unnecessary personal judgments. Do you really not see the blatant ethnocentrism in your out-of-context judgment?

Misquoted? I was unaware of the source of the reference, but I've heard it several times in various forms. I fear I'm unaware of my faux pas in this instance.

Well, rather than get into an explanation of the concept of comedic irony, which I think would be insulting to you, I'll simply explain what I was saying: just like Churchill's reference back in 1947, the "system" may not seem like it's the best we have when things don't go our way, but in the absence of a better proposed system one is required to work with what we have. For better or for worse. In Churchill's case, it was losing an election. With regard to the economy, it is those who have experienced hardship (and many of us have at some point or another).

That's all I meant. You work, the results of which (fruits of that labour) should available to that person. If they're not, that's part of where life is not fair kicks into play, which I would hope to minimise.

Then that leads inexorably to those who do not put forth the labor not getting the fruits. This is the problem I spoke of in an earlier post about there definitely being an education gap in understanding how the economy works as opposed to the misconceptions that seem to abound regarding how wealth accumulation happens. Most people who deal with significantly lower wealth accumulation have at least one of the following qualities: roadblocks attributable to overwhelming class issues (mostly along ethnic bounds, but not always so), lack of instructions on how to manage even small amounts of money to cause it to grow (the most common), and being native to a nation where the elements of a strong and stable economy are not present (a great number of third-world nations fall into this category). None of these are completely insurmountable and I would agree that there should be fewer roadblocks, but the reality is that there are a lot of people working to lessen these roadblocks and more human beings today are more capable of successfully maintaining or growing wealth than have ever been able to in any previous period in human civilization. If that's not progress I don't know what is.

I agree, it's just the shelter that is a basic right (rental prices tend to follow housing prices).

Who foots the bill, then? You mentioned that I seemed to be anti-capitalist and a bit of a hippie, but I'm asking you who is supposed to foot the bill in such situations? Or are you proposing a feasible and workable economic device to mitigate this problem? If so, please let me know because I might even be able to find you some investors to try to implement such a device if you have it worked out in a well-explained manner. Believe me when I say there are people whose very careers are built around trying to solve this type of problem, so do feel free to share.

I seem to have misunderstood. What you outlined there mirrors my own beliefs. I believe a lot of people perceive this as (unjust) inequality, but I don't see any way to mediate the differences in an equitable or fair manner.

I would submit to you that you may not see any way to mitigate such inequities because movies like Zeitgeist twist the realities into huge yarns of misinformed gravitas, without offering a tenable or reasonable answer. It's yet another sign of it being spun from New Age cloth, with plenty of old-fashioned damning of everything not of itself but with very little substantial alternatives offered in its place. It's just the old fire-and-brimstone nonsense wrapped up in fancy new clothes.

fullflavormenthol

5th July 2008, 01:08 AM

Well the point you threw out there is the zodiac didn't exist pre-Christ (new testament). It was used prior to Jesus to create the Dendera zodiac, I don't know what more you want. If you disagree with the conclusions made (associations drawn between Jesus and the zodiac), that is fine, but to rule them out citing the concept of the zodiac didn't exist seems a bit extreme.

Except for the fact that the Dendera zodiac is accepted as existing only as early as 50 BC. In the scheme a chronology this actually isn't as pre-Christian as you want it to be. It also isn't the same zodiac used to contruct these theories, and there is zero evidence of its use in the society that birthed the Jesus story. So it is discounted due to a lack of any evidence to support such an extreme theory. So no it isn't extreme in the least.

Nick227

5th July 2008, 05:32 PM

Well the point you threw out there is the zodiac didn't exist pre-Christ (new testament). It was used prior to Jesus to create the Dendera zodiac, I don't know what more you want. If you disagree with the conclusions made (associations drawn between Jesus and the zodiac), that is fine, but to rule them out citing the concept of the zodiac didn't exist seems a bit extreme.

I don't think the zodiac itself is particularly significant. Various mystical schools divide unity into 12 portions and so 12 zodiacal signs can be used to represent this. The 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 edges of a cube, the 12 parts of the body, the 12 semitones in an octave, whatever. The individual symbols aren't really so relevant, imo. What matters is that there are 12 of them. It's one of those numbers that mystics believe unity naturally divides itself into.

Nick

potato991

8th July 2008, 05:22 AM

That's an assertion I find ridiculous, and is incorrect in every conceivable way as someone who studies history in terms of anthropology. What you did was basically redefine an ancient story using modern moral structure based on your own personal (subjective) perspective. That is exactly the antithesis of objectivity.

Are you implying that the authors viewpoint is inherently the most objective one, as it takes into account historical context? You seem to be trying to draw conclusions based on the culture. You cannot derive something objective from something that is clearly subjective (the culture itself). For me objectivity means freedom from assumption or interpretation. Where are the assumptions in my 'faux-objectictivist' description? If your definition of objectivity is different, then fine we can agree to disagree.

the "system" may not seem like it's the best we have when things don't go our way, but in the absence of a better proposed system one is required to work with what we have.

?? Aside from the slight difference with the addition of 'when things don't go our way', that is how I read your original comment. I still fail to see the misquoting. Regardless of whether things are going our way or not, the system isn't perfect, but it's the best on offer.

You mentioned that I seemed to be anti-capitalist and a bit of a hippie,
I figure that was a typo, I got the impression you took me to be anti-capitalist and perhaps hippie :)

I'm asking you who is supposed to foot the bill in such situations? Or are you proposing a feasible and workable economic device to mitigate this problem? If so, please let me know because I might even be able to find you some investors to try to implement such a device if you have it worked out in a well-explained manner. Believe me when I say there are people whose very careers are built around trying to solve this type of problem, so do feel free to share.

This is not about providing things for free, it's about removal of excessive upward pressure on housing/rental prices, which is far exceeding wage growth. There are a couple of things on the table in Australia (that govt has hinted at considering), removal of capital gains tax and negative gearing legislation (to make property a less attractive commodity), more extreme measures considered in New Zealand in form of targeted taxes (only heard rumours on that one). What's important is they try things. The things they have already tried (first home owners grant of $14'000) are laughable, not simply because they don't work, but because you can see how they serve to make the situation worse.

GreNME

8th July 2008, 06:15 PM

Are you implying that the authors viewpoint is inherently the most objective one, as it takes into account historical context? You seem to be trying to draw conclusions based on the culture. You cannot derive something objective from something that is clearly subjective (the culture itself). For me objectivity means freedom from assumption or interpretation. Where are the assumptions in my 'faux-objectictivist' description? If your definition of objectivity is different, then fine we can agree to disagree.

Well, first and foremost your use of terms like "monkeys" for people is questionable at best, damning at worst. Your reduction to absurdity of the actual events that take place in the chapter, not-so-subtly ignoring the context of the scene in the rest of the story, is equally questionable at best, damning at worst. Just to take your own 'definition' of objectivity as "freedom from assumption or interpretation" you fail your own litmus test. I'm offering no assumptions about the chapter because I don't even have any real notion that it even happened, as such it stands to me (and pretty much every examination I've ever read) as a part of a midrash that's supposed to describe the basis for Mosaic Law and an attempt to tie the Hebrew people to the land that is currently Israel/Palestine.

I strongly urge you to not try to get some other message from what I'm saying. I'm not making assumptions about what the passages mean, I'm placing the passages into the actual historical time and place which they are supposed to have occurred in order to establish a context, from which intellectually honest examination can begin. Much like taking The Iliad and placing it into its historical context for proper examination, I'm pointing out that the Moses story would require the same for any level of intellectual honesty.

?? Aside from the slight difference with the addition of 'when things don't go our way', that is how I read your original comment. I still fail to see the misquoting. Regardless of whether things are going our way or not, the system isn't perfect, but it's the best on offer.

The difference you mention is key to what I'm saying, though. I can understand the desire to look into alternatives of changes that could be made to the current system(s), but my main point of contention with things like the movie Zeitgeist is that it not only doesn't take an intellectually honest look at the system to begin with, but actually proposes moving back to a system that already failed the US and many other countries already.

I figure that was a typo, I got the impression you took me to be anti-capitalist and perhaps hippie :)

No, I was pointing out that you not only mistook my statements for containing such concepts, but have equally made your own statements that could be (mis)construed as the same. This is why I'm avoiding such classifications in what I'm saying in the first place. I think our conversation would go smoother if we both kept to that.

This is not about providing things for free, it's about removal of excessive upward pressure on housing/rental prices, which is far exceeding wage growth.

That's exactly what's happening right now in the United States.

There are a couple of things on the table in Australia (that govt has hinted at considering), removal of capital gains tax and negative gearing legislation (to make property a less attractive commodity), more extreme measures considered in New Zealand in form of targeted taxes (only heard rumours on that one). What's important is they try things. The things they have already tried (first home owners grant of $14'000) are laughable, not simply because they don't work, but because you can see how they serve to make the situation worse.

In my opinion, those seem like valid things to be opposed to in your position. They sound like incredibly irresponsible fiscal actions. However, none of those things sound like inherent flaws in the system. They sound like stupid political moves that would be damaging to the economy in AU and NZ. There's not a system in existence that can protect stupid decision-makers from themselves, but I'd point out that both Australians and Kiwis do have a way to protect themselves from such poor decisions: vote the idiots out of office. It's not easy, but it can be done-- the US has been working on that since 2006 here in the States. :)

potato991

10th July 2008, 04:53 AM

Well, first and foremost your use of terms like "monkeys" for people is questionable at best, damning at worst.
Well I used ants when I first wrote it, but it didn't fit the analogy. Ants don't exactly command each other around, not in a way that can be observed from a third party. If one takes issue with the use of apes as the analogy, this reflects on the readers personal bias, as there was nothing damning intended. I avoided the use of humans so as to remain detached from the subject matter.

Your reduction to absurdity of the actual events that take place in the chapter, not-so-subtly ignoring the context of the scene in the rest of the story, is equally questionable at best, damning at worst.

My reduction expresses the salient points of the story. There is no circumstance in which wanton murder is justified, thus the context is irrelevant. I will reconsider things if you can provide any example whereby murdering someone, who has effected no material harm to the perpetrator or their kin (or has overtly expressed intention thereof), is acceptable.

Just to take your own 'definition' of objectivity as "freedom from assumption or interpretation" you fail your own litmus test.

Circular reasoning.

I'm offering no assumptions about the chapter because I don't even have any real notion that it even happened

I'm not making assumptions. Killing someone who has not threatened you in any tangible way, against their will, is universally unacceptable. Perhaps it's universally subjectively unacceptable, but this hardly changes things. I find it contemptible that people can justify killing others in the name of their God - it escapes me why someone would defend the moral principles of literature endorsing this.

GreNME

10th July 2008, 08:33 AM

Well I used ants when I first wrote it, but it didn't fit the analogy. Ants don't exactly command each other around, not in a way that can be observed from a third party. If one takes issue with the use of apes as the analogy, this reflects on the readers personal bias, as there was nothing damning intended. I avoided the use of humans so as to remain detached from the subject matter.

Perhaps you are unaware of how you were letting subjective interpretation through on this case. What you were doing, whether you consciously meant to or not, was a reverse of anthropomorphism by not only calling them animals, but by choosing a different animal than they are. You can argue the semantics of your choice if you truly wish, but even by your own admission of first wanting to use ants you are showing that you were not allowing them to be correctly identified as humans in the first place.

If you are unwilling to call a spade a spade, you're not practicing objectivity. Hence my original assesment.

My reduction expresses the salient points of the story.

You claim this, but you provide no evidence outside of your own subjective judgment on the matter.

There is no circumstance in which wanton murder is justified, thus the context is irrelevant. I will reconsider things if you can provide any example whereby murdering someone, who has effected no material harm to the perpetrator or their kin (or has overtly expressed intention thereof), is acceptable.

Do you really not see how what you are doing is applying your own personal sense of morality to the scenario?

Just to take your own 'definition' of objectivity as "freedom from assumption or interpretation" you fail your own litmus test.
Circular reasoning.

How is that circular? I basically turned your own argument back on what you said. You were the one who claimed objectivity is devoid of assumption or interpretation, and yet you stated yourself that you wanted to call humans ants and that you are making morality arguments, while claiming that your interpretation is accurate. This is why I called your assessment faux-objectivist to begin with: it makes pretenses at being objective but is based almost exclusively on subjective reasoning. What you are doing is being self-contradictory and refusing to accept that your interpretation of the chapter may have very little bearing (outside of your own subjective view) to the actual context of that chapter, the ones before it, and the ones that follow. No one in this thread is justifying the chapter, and you are the only one demanding that a justification be made.

I'm not making assumptions. Killing someone who has not threatened you in any tangible way, against their will, is universally unacceptable. Perhaps it's universally subjectively unacceptable, but this hardly changes things. I find it contemptible that people can justify killing others in the name of their God - it escapes me why someone would defend the moral principles of literature endorsing this.

I'm sorry, you are now arguing something completely outside of the realm of anything I have been saying, and arguably outside of the realm of anything anyone in this thread has been saying. As far as I can tell, no one here is justifying murder, no one here is arguing the right-ness or wrong-ness about killing for religion except you, and we've gone beyond discussing the actual relevance of part of the story of Moses in relation to other religious mythologies. Further, you are now accusing me of defending murder.

So, potato991, I'll give you another chance to go back and actually read what I've been saying. Try to do so without getting so emotionally charged over this, because it is seriously skewing what I am actually saying and somehow giving you the wrong impression. Whether you can accept my request to examine what I actually say instead of what you think I'm saying is up to you, and if necessary you can ask me to clarify until you are sure you understand what I'm saying. Otherwise this discussion is going to devolve into us speaking past one another far too quickly.

potato991

11th July 2008, 07:02 AM

but even by your own admission of first wanting to use ants you are showing that you were not allowing them to be correctly identified as humans in the first place.

The further the subject matter is detached from the observer, the more objective one can be. Seeing as you take issue with it, in retrospect it would have been better to say a tribesman from a remote region observed these 'foreigners'. Understand that changing the actors in the analogy in this way does nothing to change the meaning, which is why the selection was unimportant to me - so long as the actors were capable of communicating intention.

If you are unwilling to call a spade a spade, you're not practicing objectivity. Hence my original assesment.

Then your assessment is on my personal objectivity, nothing to do with the objectivity of the statement in question.

There is no circumstance in which wanton murder is justified, thus the context is irrelevant. I will reconsider things if you can provide any example whereby murdering someone, who has effected no material harm to the perpetrator or their kin (or has overtly expressed intention thereof), is acceptable.

Do you really not see how what you are doing is applying your own personal sense of morality to the scenario?

I am applying the consensus morality of sentient life forms to the scenario. Simply put no animal wants to be murdered. Why do you avoid answering the question, it would be easy to provide a counter-example if the premise was logically flawed.

How is that circular? I basically turned your own argument back on what you said. You were the one who claimed objectivity is devoid of assumption or interpretation, and yet you stated yourself that you wanted to call humans ants and that you are making morality arguments, while claiming that your interpretation is accurate.

I took it to mean you were saying because my definition of objectivity is in itself subjective, that I cannot, by definition, be objective. This being a technically valid, but ultimately pointless, line of reasoning.

Either way you're talking about my own personal objectivity, not the objectivity of the statement. If I said 2 camels + 2 camels = 4 camels, how is the ground truth of the statement affected by my choice to use camels? It isn't.

I'm sorry, you are now arguing something completely outside of the realm of anything I have been saying, and arguably outside of the realm of anything anyone in this thread has been saying. As far as I can tell, no one here is justifying murder, no one here is arguing the right-ness or wrong-ness about killing for religion except you

You said "The story of Moses is one of a lawgiver, not a revenger". You are trivialising the impact of his actions, instead suggesting he is a lawgiver. Though I apologise up front if you are not in fact defending the actions of Moses.

To allow us get to the root of the matter, I need to establish just what your position is on the following.

- Was the action of Moses commanding the soldiers to slay their fellow man wrong, right, or neutral?
- Was Moses angry when he saw the people, and wanted to punish them for their actions? Yes or no.
- Was the death of three thousand people more significant than the failure to obey commandments given by Moses?

I may well be surprised by what you come back with, but combining the above does not pain a picture of a lawgiver. He wanted to save them originally, pleading with God, then he got angry and had them killed? This is not justice.

Further, you are now accusing me of defending murder.

Whoa, that's jumping to conclusions - I have not accused you of any such thing. You are defending the moral interpretation of literature that I see as overtly supporting faith based killing. Although it is not clear whether you defend the actual actions of Moses, where many Christians would.

what I am actually saying and somehow giving you the wrong impression

Indeed this is possible, as it has already happened a number of times. I expect concise answers to the above will clear up any misconceptions I have.

Nick227

11th July 2008, 07:46 AM

You said "The story of Moses is one of a lawgiver, not a revenger". You are trivialising the impact of his actions, instead suggesting he is a lawgiver. Though I apologise up front if you are not in fact defending the actions of Moses.

To allow us get to the root of the matter, I need to establish just what your position is on the following.

- Was the action of Moses commanding the soldiers to slay their fellow man wrong, right, or neutral?
- Was Moses angry when he saw the people, and wanted to punish them for their actions? Yes or no.
- Was the death of three thousand people more significant than the failure to obey commandments given by Moses?

Well, life was tougher in the old days. People got killed, even in religious books. Moses was a lawgiver and sometimes you needed to set an example. **** happens. I mean he was probably a bit mad, but even Krishna told Arjuna to just fight and fight and not think about the consequences. Would you consider him a bad dude?

I don't think you can say someone is wrong for wanting to punish people. Desires are autonomous. People piss me off and I feel like getting back at them. I try to think about it before just reacting but the reaction is still there. It's not wrong or right.

Nick

GreNME

11th July 2008, 08:21 AM

The further the subject matter is detached from the observer, the more objective one can be.

Detachment does not equal objectivity. Lack of personal assumptions contributes to objectivity.

Seeing as you take issue with it, in retrospect it would have been better to say a tribesman from a remote region observed these 'foreigners'. Understand that changing the actors in the analogy in this way does nothing to change the meaning, which is why the selection was unimportant to me - so long as the actors were capable of communicating intention.

No, what I'm saying is that removing the chapter from its context removes the overall story being told. A similar tact could be taken with The Iliad, with accounts of the American Revolution, or (this is common) even a political leader's speech, which can lead to equally-misconstrued assumptions being made out of context and without actual connection to the person or story from which they came. Doing so skews objectivity: this has actually been documented with regard to political partisanship, by the way, and the same dissonance applies to more than just politics or religion.

Then your assessment is on my personal objectivity, nothing to do with the objectivity of the statement in question.

No, my objection is to the lack of your statements in having contextual reference and relevance to the actual story of Moses.

I am applying the consensus morality of sentient life forms to the scenario. Simply put no animal wants to be murdered. Why do you avoid answering the question, it would be easy to provide a counter-example if the premise was logically flawed.

You assume a whole lot with the language you're using. Whether you mean to or not you seem to be trying to speak for the whole of humanity, morality, and nature. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't actually meaning to do so, but I'm pointing out that the heavy amount of gravitas in your language is hindering your ability to make a point on-topic and is instead changing the topic to one of arguing about morality.

I took it to mean you were saying because my definition of objectivity is in itself subjective, that I cannot, by definition, be objective. This being a technically valid, but ultimately pointless, line of reasoning.

That was not what I was saying. I was saying that your assessment failed to meet the criteria you put forth yourself in your definition of objectivity. If you feel that meeting your own criteria of definition, thus ignoring internal consistency, is ultimately pointless then do you require of anyone else to meet your own stated criteria? If so, why; if not, why not?

Either way you're talking about my own personal objectivity, not the objectivity of the statement. If I said 2 camels + 2 camels = 4 camels, how is the ground truth of the statement affected by my choice to use camels? It isn't.

I'm sure that you believe this is what you were doing, but it does not seem that way to myself nor to at least a couple others who have responded to your interpretations. Still, that's beside the point because what you actually have not done is cover the information you presented with regard to why you believe it supports or does not support the theses in the Zeitgeist movie.

You said "The story of Moses is one of a lawgiver, not a revenger". You are trivialising the impact of his actions, instead suggesting he is a lawgiver. Though I apologise up front if you are not in fact defending the actions of Moses.

I'm neither defending nor accusing Moses, because unless there is evidence otherwise he is but a character in a midrash. I am explaining what the academic consensus on Moses is, including historical, anthropological, and theological perspectives on the same story. What you seem to be doing is taking one episode and demanding a judgment of the whole be given from the single sliver. I am trying to point out that this is what you are doing, and you are responding by asking me to give you my own moral judgments instead of sticking to the academic material.

To allow us get to the root of the matter, I need to establish just what your position is on the following.

- Was the action of Moses commanding the soldiers to slay their fellow man wrong, right, or neutral?
- Was Moses angry when he saw the people, and wanted to punish them for their actions? Yes or no.
- Was the death of three thousand people more significant than the failure to obey commandments given by Moses?

My position is that none of those things are relevant to my own personal morality in the first place, and they are definitely not relevant to the subject we've been previously discussing except possibly from your own point of view. Unless you can clearly explain how and why these things would provide any sort of relevant information in support of the Zeitgeist movie or not, I'm simply not seeing how this tangent is getting us anywhere but providing a pulpit for moralizing.

I may well be surprised by what you come back with, but combining the above does not pain a picture of a lawgiver. He wanted to save them originally, pleading with God, then he got angry and had them killed? This is not justice.

Like I said, you're taking one small part and making a judgment of the whole (story of Moses). Until you recognize this I'm not sure this conversation is useful except to allow for sermonizing.

Further, you are now accusing me of defending murder.
Whoa, that's jumping to conclusions - I have not accused you of any such thing. You are defending the moral interpretation of literature that I see as overtly supporting faith based killing. Although it is not clear whether you defend the actual actions of Moses, where many Christians would.

Jumping to conclusions? Perhaps you should learn to choose your words a bit more calmly and carefully, then. Your own words: "I will reconsider things if you can provide any example whereby murdering someone, who has effected no material harm to the perpetrator or their kin (or has overtly expressed intention thereof), is acceptable."

What you did within that quote was make a strawman argument that I provide some sort of justification for something completely separate from and irrelevant to what I've been saying up to that point. The only way that wouldn't have been a strawman argument on your part is if you actually believed I was making such a justification in the first place (which you later blatantly say is murder). So, if you believe I am jumping to conclusions, then can you answer why your line of argument has changed to asking me to justify things outside of the scope of what I've been discussing in the first place? The only two options I can discern from your words are either strawman or accusing me of justifying murder. Please feel free to provide a third alternative to what you meant by your words that doesn't fall within those two categories.

what I am actually saying and somehow giving you the wrong impression
Indeed this is possible, as it has already happened a number of times. I expect concise answers to the above will clear up any misconceptions I have.

I'm sorry, but I'm not here to have a moralizing conversation, I'm here to have an academic and scholarly conversation. I'm not inclined to tell anyone what I think their morals should be, and I tend to find those who are inclined to do so to be tiresome or boorish.

Perhaps you aren't demand that I moralize the material, and if you are indeed not demanding this of me I apologize for getting that impression. However, the impression I've gotten so far is that the extent to which you feel this material is relevant regarding the Jesus parallelism / pagan origin theories within the movie Zeitgeist is that the movie is making the argument that Christianity (and possibly all religion) is immoral. If this is, indeed, the case you are making then I'm afraid you are only supporting an early assessment I made of the film in that its contents-- the first part in particular-- are mostly just another form of religious sermonizing in the same vein of any other preacher sermonizing, and is not actually concerned with historical accuracy.

You see, I have no concern with whether you find Christianity to be valid or not from a religious perspective, potato991. I'm happy to explain that I'm agnostic and definitely not Christian, but anything further than that isn't really my cup of tea as far as religious discussion goes, because I am not supportive of playing with the religious faith of others. I especially refuse to play with the faith of others under the assumption that I somehow know better than they do what they should believe-- it's my opinion that if I do that I am no different than televangelists whom I will plainly admit I dislike immensely. I have plenty of opinions that are of a moral or ethical nature, and I can assure you they aren't difficult to find if you look for them (or I can direct you to them), but I make every effort I can to avoid putting my own personal opinions on morality and ethics into academic matters because I want to keep the discussion focused on the facts and not on me. Additionally, the more I am pressed to include my own morality and ethics into an academic discussion, the more I am inclined to believe that the intent of the discussion is not to address the facts but instead address my own personal beliefs. If you are asking me to discuss my personal beliefs then I humbly submit you create a new discussion on that topic and keep this one about the facts, if only for compartmentalization's sake.

Is that concise enough? :)

potato991

12th July 2008, 10:32 PM

Detachment does not equal objectivity. Lack of personal assumptions contributes to objectivity.

Agree.

No, what I'm saying is that removing the chapter from its context removes the overall story being told.

Ok so let me break down how I'm reading this, show me where this analogy diverges from what we've been discussing. Pointing out the differences will go a long way in helping me understand where you're coming from.

"Hitler was a bad man"
"I would like you to specify, because what I know of the Hitler story is quite different than what you describe."
"Hitler gassed thousands of innocent Jews"
"The story of Hitler is one of a patriot, not a bad man. Your interpretation ignores context and culture to understand what was done."
"I don't care if Hitler saved all the starving children in the world, and then died for our sins, there is no context that would make what he did acceptable."
"Do you really not see how what you are doing is applying your own personal sense of morality to the scenario?"
":confused:"

I hope you don't think this has been taken out of context, but if so, edit as you see fit. You must see that someone could apply your exact reasoning in defense of Hitler.

You assume a whole lot with the language you're using. Whether you mean to or not you seem to be trying to speak for the whole of humanity, morality, and nature. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't actually meaning to do so
No sentient animal wants to be murded, it goes against that fundamental drive, survival. There may be rare exceptions, which is why I used the term consensus. Make of that what you will, but one thing is for certain, one does not need assumptions to come to this conclusion.

then do you require of anyone else to meet your own stated criteria? If so, why; if not, why not?
The criteria is set for the statements. You may consider the source (author) if you like, and their own influences, but this could carry on ad infinitum.

Still, that's beside the point because what you actually have not done is cover the information you presented with regard to why you believe it supports or does not support the theses in the Zeitgeist movie.

This discussion is borne of your request to give examples of Moses being vengeful.

What you seem to be doing is taking one episode and demanding a judgment of the whole be given from the single sliver.
No, rather that Moses can be considered vengeful despite all the good he may have done. This has never been about the entire life story of Moses, just an example, at your request "Could you give some specific examples of the story of Moses you feel qualifies him as 'vengeful'?".

My position is that none of those things are relevant to my own personal morality in the first place, and they are definitely not relevant to the subject we've been previously discussing except possibly from your own point of view.

You asked for specific examples of Moses being vengeful, I provided one. You refute it by saying the example is out of context, to which I say there is no context that makes it acceptable, any less vengeful.

What you did within that quote was make a strawman argument that I provide some sort of justification for something completely separate from and irrelevant to what I've been saying up to that point.
This is not getting off topic, you cannot provide a context absolving Moses of his actions, which is all I'm asking for. You are telling me context changes the valence of the morality of his action, I need you to explain how this is so. I'm sorry if it comes across as personal - I don't necessarily need your personal view, just any logical worldview supportive of your claims.

because I am not supportive of playing with the religious faith of others. I especially refuse to play with the faith of others under the assumption that I somehow know better than they do what they should believe
The lord said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So long as theists go about evangelising, I'm happy to play their game. The position you take is a respectable one, admirable even. I personally lack the discipline for such a stance. The persistence of theists drawing a causal link between atheism / agnosticism and lack of morals is what guides me in this direction. Religion does not equate to morality. Religion can be a force for good, but theists are in no rush to eliminate the negative bigotry ridden aspects. Buddhism is a shining example of how things could be.

If you are going to tell me killing is not 'wrong' (the de facto stance), then you need to provide evidence as to why it is acceptable in the context discussed. Unfortunately this may require delving into your personal moral beliefs, as you might think there are conditions which justify it - I couldn't argue with that, I would merely conclude we had come to an impasse. The same applies to a debate on abortion, I don't think it's wrong in all contexts, where others do. I could not really argue the point that abortion was not 'wrong' in all circumstances, I feel the same applies here.

potato991

12th July 2008, 10:37 PM

I don't think you can say someone is wrong for wanting to punish people. Desires are autonomous. People piss me off and I feel like getting back at them. I try to think about it before just reacting but the reaction is still there. It's not wrong or right.

This sounds like nihilism. If Moses just wanted to punish people, that's fine, nobody gets hurt. He crossed the line when following through.

If whenever people piss you off, you always *follow through* getting back at them, I'll go out on a limb and say it's probably wrong :D.

GreNME

13th July 2008, 12:39 AM

Ok so let me break down how I'm reading this, show me where this analogy diverges from what we've been discussing. Pointing out the differences will go a long way in helping me understand where you're coming from.

"Hitler was a bad man"
"I would like you to specify, because what I know of the Hitler story is quite different than what you describe."
"Hitler gassed thousands of innocent Jews"
"The story of Hitler is one of a patriot, not a bad man. Your interpretation ignores context and culture to understand what was done."
"I don't care if Hitler saved all the starving children in the world, and then died for our sins, there is no context that would make what he did acceptable."
"Do you really not see how what you are doing is applying your own personal sense of morality to the scenario?"
":confused:"

I hope you don't think this has been taken out of context, but if so, edit as you see fit. You must see that someone could apply your exact reasoning in defense of Hitler.

I really hate it when discussions take this route, because the problem is that invoking Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, or whichever recent tyrant you want is going to serve exactly two purposes: 1. it (intentionally or not) plays for an emotional response, and 2. is intentionally equating the original subject to what is considered one of the historically most prolific mass-murderers in history. It is the grandiose equivalent of the "do you still beat your wife?" line of argument.

Besides, if you want to make a serious historical comparison to real modern-era people, then a more accurate person to bring up is Yassir Arafat, not Hitler. Arafat was, like the depiction of Moses, a brutal man who caused the deaths of not only his enemies but many of his own people, through means that could rightly be considered cruel. Equally, both men considered their actions to be not only in line with their god's will, but required of them. Using Hitler is a rhetorical cop-out, and I'm seriously trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

However, what you are doing (intentionally or unintentionally), potato991, is obfuscating the topic and inserting emotional arguments where none have been made in opposition. You have yet to make a case that it was Moses who was vengeful and not his god, nor have you explained why the vast consensus of views of Moses as a lawmaker and lawgiver-- and keep in mind that execution of the law within the chapter you describe is fitting with that theme-- is incorrect. Instead, you keep making arguments against something no one has stated. Here are some exampes

No sentient animal wants to be murded, it goes against that fundamental drive, survival.
The lord said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If you are going to tell me killing is not 'wrong' (the de facto stance), then you need to provide evidence as to why it is acceptable in the context discussed.

No one is arguing that anyone wants to be murdered, no one is arguing whether theological platitudes are being followed today, and no one is arguing that murder is not wrong. I ask you once again to please stop coming at me with such arguments, because I am not making arguments opposing them.

The criteria is set for the statements. You may consider the source (author) if you like, and their own influences, but this could carry on ad infinitum.

You were the one who placed criteria for your definition of objective, not me. If you are not adhering to your own definition you specifically used to claim your objectivity, then you are (perhaps inadvertently) contradicting yourself.

This discussion is borne of your request to give examples of Moses being vengeful.

I asked you to clarify the point you were trying to make by using examples, and I've pointed out already where the example you gave is one of punishment according to (Jewish) law and not revenge on the part of Moses. If you would like to get past the emotional arguments and asking me to justify Hitler (which is a ridiculous request to make of me, and one I refuse) then we can actually discuss the example you brought up in more detail.

No, rather that Moses can be considered vengeful despite all the good he may have done. This has never been about the entire life story of Moses, just an example, at your request "Could you give some specific examples of the story of Moses you feel qualifies him as 'vengeful'?".

To which you provided an example. And to your example I replied:You're conflating "vengeance" for "punishment" in your assessment. The story of Moses is one of a lawgiver, not a revenger.
To which you responded with:I have done no such thing, that definition was lifted straight from the dictionary - you shall have to take it up with them :D. Being a lawgiver does not preclude Moses from being vengeful.
To which I replied:Well, you seem to grasp the English language well enough, so I hope I don't have to explain why I used the term 'conflating' instead of 'mixing up' when describing what you did. Vengeance can be considered a form of punishment, though it doesn't define punishment. Neither does it define the chapter from which you took the passage you quoted. The full chapter describes the people behaving unjustly when Moses is to present the laws ostensibly given to him by their god, and the passage you cite is describing part of the punishment.

Emphasis mine. Please note where I already point out that the single line you quoted, which is part of a larger chapter depicting a scene, is one of Moses punishing people for breaking a law. I didn't argue that it was acceptable, reasonable, or even justified. I simply pointed out that what you are trying to claim is an act of vengeance does not equate to what I and many, many scholars who are far more well-versed in biblical themes and symbolism than both you and I have concluded the passage was describing. So, once again, if you would like to make a point as to why you believe this chapter is describing an act of vengeance on the part of Moses, rather than an act of punishment executed by Moses as the will of a supposed and self-proclaimed vengeful god, then I'm all ears. You have yet to do so.

You asked for specific examples of Moses being vengeful, I provided one. You refute it by saying the example is out of context, to which I say there is no context that makes it acceptable, any less vengeful.

To which I say you are applying your own definitions to which character in the story is actually being vengeful and which characters in the story are carrying out the will of the vengeful character. You have yet to respond to my argument and have instead gone several posts further away from the original subject matter.

This is not getting off topic, you cannot provide a context absolving Moses of his actions, which is all I'm asking for. You are telling me context changes the valence of the morality of his action, I need you to explain how this is so. I'm sorry if it comes across as personal - I don't necessarily need your personal view, just any logical worldview supportive of your claims.

You don't seem to be understanding what I've been saying no matter how I put it, and instead have been posting with certain assumptions in mind. I've not once posted a single attempt to absolve the actions in the chapter you describe. I've not once tried to justify the actions in the chapter you describe. In fact, I've been trying to make it a point to emphasize why I'm not choosing to do so and why I don't think your demand that I do so is relevant to the subject matter.

The lord said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So long as theists go about evangelising, I'm happy to play their game. The position you take is a respectable one, admirable even. I personally lack the discipline for such a stance. The persistence of theists drawing a causal link between atheism / agnosticism and lack of morals is what guides me in this direction. Religion does not equate to morality. Religion can be a force for good, but theists are in no rush to eliminate the negative bigotry ridden aspects. Buddhism is a shining example of how things could be.

Do you understand that I am an agnostic? Let me make this abundantly clear to you: I am not a Christian, I am agnostic. I do not recognize, worship, or assume the existence of anything supernatural, divine, or otherwise mystical or magical. I strongly urge you to keep this in mind when you read what I'm saying.

If you are going to tell me killing is not 'wrong' (the de facto stance), then you need to provide evidence as to why it is acceptable in the context discussed. Unfortunately this may require delving into your personal moral beliefs, as you might think there are conditions which justify it - I couldn't argue with that, I would merely conclude we had come to an impasse. The same applies to a debate on abortion, I don't think it's wrong in all contexts, where others do. I could not really argue the point that abortion was not 'wrong' in all circumstances, I feel the same applies here.

I disagree that the same applies here. Instead, I think what we are experiencing is a bout of cognitive dissonance. You have provided what you feel is a valid example that supports your original claim, and I have responded in a manner that you find outrageous. The reason I am of the opinion that this is an example of cognitive dissonance on your part is because you have not focused on the example you gave with regard to why, how, and what within it you find supports your original assertion, but have instead taken your arguments and focused them on what my moral views on murder might be, on emotionally-charged statements that don't outright accuse me of defending murder (but come close), and lastly have determined that the impasse must be somehow tied into a value judgment on our parts with regard to the morality of the actions described in your example instead of the actual properties of the example and whether it retains qualities you originally claimed it did. The dissonance is that I have already pointed out where your defense of your assertion does not meet criteria you set forth in your own words and have instead ignored that in lieu of an emotional argument using morality, Hitler, and finally abortion as talking points in defense of your original claim-- none of which actually address the qualities within your example that you feel exemplify an act of vengeance by Moses as opposed to an act of punishment dictated by a vengeful god.

So, if we are at an impasse-- and I honestly hope we aren't-- it is because the conversation has drifted so far from the original talking point you brought up to begin with and the fact that you still have yet to address the point I made a page (and several posts) ago refuting your claim that this was an example of Moses being vengeful and not Moses carrying out the law of his (vengeful) god, which is in line with the larger story of Moses and his symbolic archetype within biblical literature.

Hokulele

13th July 2008, 12:47 AM

What the heck?

Nick227

13th July 2008, 10:24 AM

This sounds like nihilism. If Moses just wanted to punish people, that's fine, nobody gets hurt. He crossed the line when following through.

If whenever people piss you off, you always *follow through* getting back at them, I'll go out on a limb and say it's probably wrong

I agree with you. I think you still have to consider whether Moses simply reacted to the situation, or considered his possible responses and elected to kill people. These days I would agree that killing people is pretty much totally unneeded, but I don't know back then where they were at.

I think you also have to consider that Exodus can be interpreted allegorically, and that it is not necessarily the case that anyone died. The stories can be a spiritual metaphor based partly or not-at-all on actual events.

Nick

potato991

15th July 2008, 05:21 AM

Using Hitler is a rhetorical cop-out, and I'm seriously trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

You are a generous man, I've lost count of how many times you've given me the benefit of the doubt :D. Hitler is just an obvious, straight forward example, perhaps I'm too lazy to come up with a better example. Perverse as it might sound, I could take the bulk of your arguments and apply them in the defense of Hitler, with equal conviction. I was digging for a less generic response, which you've provided in your latest post (I shall come back to this).

However, what you are doing (intentionally or unintentionally), potato991, is obfuscating the topic and inserting emotional arguments where none have been made in opposition
Might I suggest that when I do that, something along the lines of "I agree" would be in order, an effective way to diffuse someone going off on a tangent.

Instead, you keep making arguments against something no one has stated. Here are some exampes

No sentient animal wants to be murded, it goes against that fundamental drive, survival.

This was in response to your comment "you seem to be trying to speak for the whole of humanity", I wanted to make it clear this is not the case.

If you are not adhering to your own definition you specifically used to claim your objectivity, then you are (perhaps inadvertently) contradicting yourself.

I'm not objective, I'm human. I think statements can be, for all intents and purposes, objective, as can a persons logic. I leave the question of perfect objectivity to philosophers.

I didn't argue that it was acceptable, reasonable, or even justified.
Until reading this I wasn't sure, encouraging to hear.

So, once again, if you would like to make a point as to why you believe this chapter is describing an act of vengeance on the part of Moses, rather than an act of punishment executed by Moses as the will of a supposed and self-proclaimed vengeful god, then I'm all ears.
I think I finally have some closure on this Moses tangent. To my understanding, at no stage does God command Moses to kill those people. One might feel it was implied, but I think it's clear Moses had a choice. He made the wrong choice, a choice telling of his underlying character. Particularly damning is how his decision was made hastily in a state of anger, most of us recognize strong emotions tend to cloud our better judgement.

Naturally the 'God made me do it' defense stands for little in the real world, but this is a story, so I must be fair and take into the account the reality of God. I can understand why one might consider Moses acted as a proxy for God, though I disagree (as where do you draw the line). That being said, it is the answer I was seeking, as being forced to do something is a mechanism by which the nature of ones actions could be misrepresented.

To which I say you are applying your own definitions to which character in the story is actually being vengeful and which characters in the story are carrying out the will of the vengeful character. You have yet to respond to my argument and have instead gone several posts further away from the original subject matter.

Indeed I have gone several posts away. I'm glad you have emphasised the point that the killing was a result of a vengeful character, it's just you don't think Moses was that character. I really didn't take this away from your earlier posts. We have Exodus 32:14 "So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. ". Moses returns immediately after this, to my mind he wasn't exactly given a mandate to punish the sinners.

The lord said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So long as theists go about evangelising, I'm happy to play their game. The position you take is a respectable one, admirable even. I personally lack the discipline for such a stance. The persistence of theists drawing a causal link between atheism / agnosticism and lack of morals is what guides me in this direction. Religion does not equate to morality. Religion can be a force for good, but theists are in no rush to eliminate the negative bigotry ridden aspects. Buddhism is a shining example of how things could be.

Do you understand that I am an agnostic?

:) Yes I was of the understanding you were agnostic. Only one sentence out of that block was intended to apply to you personally.

By avoiding the generality of statements like 'it ignores context', 'what you are doing is applying your own personal sense of morality'; instead citing specific examples, you can help avoid situations where people chase red herrings (which is what I feel has happened, you've also hinted as much).

GreNME

15th July 2008, 07:27 AM

You are a generous man, I've lost count of how many times you've given me the benefit of the doubt :D. Hitler is just an obvious, straight forward example, perhaps I'm too lazy to come up with a better example. Perverse as it might sound, I could take the bulk of your arguments and apply them in the defense of Hitler, with equal conviction. I was digging for a less generic response, which you've provided in your latest post (I shall come back to this).

You're still fishing for moral arguments while I keep asking to remain focused on the academic and historical aspects.

Might I suggest that when I do that, something along the lines of "I agree" would be in order, an effective way to diffuse someone going off on a tangent.

Not going to happen. I won't be patronizing just to silence someone, and I try to be very careful about equivocal statements like "I agree" when it comes to these types of subjects.

I'm not objective, I'm human. I think statements can be, for all intents and purposes, objective, as can a persons logic. I leave the question of perfect objectivity to philosophers.

You were making it a statement of assumed moral objectivity while I was pointing out that you were working from a radically different interpretation than I or practically anyone else here was working from, and you still have yet to defend your claims.

I didn't argue that it was acceptable, reasonable, or even justified.
Until reading this I wasn't sure, encouraging to hear.

Perhaps herein lies your difficulty with this discussion. I strongly advise against assuming the worst in such a discussion, for two reasons. The first reason is because it causes you to make poor-judgment statements like equivocating the other person (or viewpoint) to monsters like Hitler, which in and of itself has become an early resort to poor arguments and first line of defense to tautologies-- best to not have your arguments associated with such. The second reason is because, quite frankly, it's very much a personal attack instead of focusing on opposing the argument.

I think I finally have some closure on this Moses tangent. To my understanding, at no stage does God command Moses to kill those people.

Okay, so are you saying you don't understand what Moses was doing before he caught the people doing that? This is what I mean by context. Moses was allegedly told by his god that worshiping other gods was a mortal sin. The chapter you pointed out exemplifies that. I hope that helps you understand a bit more in context. No one is saying that what Moses did was moral or justified, only that in the context of the story Moses is supposedly justified and righteous in his execution of the law his god gave him.

One might feel it was implied, but I think it's clear Moses had a choice. He made the wrong choice, a choice telling of his underlying character. Particularly damning is how his decision was made hastily in a state of anger, most of us recognize strong emotions tend to cloud our better judgement.

Naturally the 'God made me do it' defense stands for little in the real world, but this is a story, so I must be fair and take into the account the reality of God. I can understand why one might consider Moses acted as a proxy for God, though I disagree (as where do you draw the line). That being said, it is the answer I was seeking, as being forced to do something is a mechanism by which the nature of ones actions could be misrepresented.

All of which is irrelevant to your original arguments.

To which I say you are applying your own definitions to which character in the story is actually being vengeful and which characters in the story are carrying out the will of the vengeful character. You have yet to respond to my argument and have instead gone several posts further away from the original subject matter.
Indeed I have gone several posts away. I'm glad you have emphasised the point that the killing was a result of a vengeful character, it's just you don't think Moses was that character. I really didn't take this away from your earlier posts. We have Exodus 32:14 "So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. ". Moses returns immediately after this, to my mind he wasn't exactly given a mandate to punish the sinners.

I have not admitted that killing is a sign of vengeance. And again you're cherry-picking from a chapter that even has their own god doing the same types of activities. Chapter 32, verses 30-35: 30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. 31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. 35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Very same chapter, with Moses bargaining for the lives of his people with his own life. This is what I mean about you skipping over context-- the very chapter you initially pointed out as being so damning contradicts you.

:) Yes I was of the understanding you were agnostic. Only one sentence out of that block was intended to apply to you personally.

Sorry, but I'm going to call BS on that one. You made several comments equivocating me defending the morality of the passage, and whether or not you choose generalized language to avoid singling me out you definitely were turning this into a personal morality argument instead of one about the history and academics of the material.

By avoiding the generality of statements like 'it ignores context', 'what you are doing is applying your own personal sense of morality'; instead citing specific examples, you can help avoid situations where people chase red herrings (which is what I feel has happened, you've also hinted as much).

You're the one who decided to chase this red herring, so I'd suggest that you take your own advice on this matter. All I've done is simply refuse to agree with your assessment, and further continued to point out why your assessment was flawed. You have yet to actually offer any defense of your statement using any real argument outside of personalizing this into an argument about morality. As I've already said I'm not inclined to argue about the morality of religion, regardless of the religion. That's not what I'm posting here about. I'm posting here about retaining historical, archaeological, and rhetorical accuracy instead of making things up and playing word games-- which in my current assessment has been the practice of practically every single author on the pseudoscience of 'astrotheology' I have read, met, or spoken with so far.

It's been my hope, potato991, that with your much more amenable posting demeanor and nonaggression toward those who aren't in total agreement with you, that you could provide for me a more reasoned and cogent explanation as to the logic behind the arguments made by the more bombastic authors selling astrotheology, like presented (poorly) in the movie Zeitgeist and the companion guide produced by Dorothy. I don't think you've provided such explanations yet, though I don't discount your ability to provide something of that sort once we get past this current rhetorical speed bump.

potato991

17th July 2008, 04:39 AM

Moses was allegedly told by his god that worshiping other gods was a mortal sin.
This is taught to all Christians, why does it have special significance to Moses in this story? Would this mean any time a Christian kills an infidel (testament or otherwise), they are acting as a proxy for God; their personal motivations are beyond scrutiny? Was it Moses' place to judge the people, despite God changing his mind "So the LORD changed His mind about the harm". Even if God had not changed his mind, I think it's a stretch to say Moses was at all compelled to do what he did. Do you think a character like Jesus would have done the same? I find this highly unlikely. How do you reconcile this with your position? The only variable is the character, what can this tell us about the qualities of those characters.

No one is saying that what Moses did was moral or justified, only that in the context of the story Moses is supposedly justified and righteous in his execution of the law his god gave him.
Sigh. This is exactly what I'm saying. In the context of the story (in the mind of the author, as per the authors opinion) Moses is supposedly justified, when in reality he is not. If what the author believes was true or generally accepted, it would have grave implications for the behaviour of modern day theists.

I have not admitted that killing is a sign of vengeance.
Hence I have made no such claims.

And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Very same chapter, with Moses bargaining for the lives of his people with his own life. This is what I mean about you skipping over context-- the very chapter you initially pointed out as being so damning contradicts you.

That's a bit rich, taking elements that took place after the event, as some kind of proof of Moses' intent. This is, after all, the only item in question, what was the motivation behind Moses' decision, what is the essence of his character. Was he vengeful, or were his intentions pure. Did he think he was dealing out justice? Well, there are ways to deal out justice without killing, so I think there is more to it. Furthermore the Bible is full of contradictions, they don't simply cancel each another out.

Sorry, but I'm going to call BS on that one. You made several comments equivocating me defending the morality of the passage, and whether or not you choose generalized language to avoid singling me out you definitely were turning this into a personal morality argument instead of one about the history and academics of the material.
Well I was specifically referencing the paragraph above your comment.. Though in a broader sense, you have been arguing Moses is not vengeful, rather that the story of Moses is one of a lawgiver. You have taken to describing Moses' actions in a positive light, as a lawgiver, rather than in a negative way, containing an element of vengeance (or whatever negative quality you might ascribe to his actions). My bad for confusing this with a discussion on morality.

You have yet to actually offer any defense of your statement using any real argument outside of personalizing this into an argument about morality.
I had taken this discussion to be, indirectly, a question of Moses' morality. Vengeful is the term I would use to describe his specific action, which lies on the negative side of the spectrum. I've been fishing for a counter-example. It would be wrong of me to press you any further for a moral precedent that substantiates your claim - that wider consideration of context would change the perception of his actions in this instance.

It's been my hope, potato991, that with your much more amenable posting demeanor and nonaggression toward those who aren't in total agreement with you,
It's unfortunate I have come across as personally aggressive, I will try to take that on board. I make an exception regarding your comments about me making accusations. I think it's fine to ask 'if you believe in x, does this mean you also believe in y'. Know that some of your comments can be quite barbed (nonetheless perfectly acceptable); you have to accept that responses will be tailored accordingly.

I don't think you've provided such explanations yet, though I don't discount your ability to provide something of that sort once we get past this current rhetorical speed bump.
:) I was actively winding this discussion down (insofar as not adding new content). It's been insightful, and my core questions have been addressed. I was just looking for a bit of closure on these final points.

GreNME

17th July 2008, 08:05 AM

This is taught to all Christians,

And Jews. And Muslims. And those studying the bible in academic settings. Why are you leaving such a large and non-homogeneous list of people out?

why does it have special significance to Moses in this story? Would this mean any time a Christian kills an infidel (testament or otherwise), they are acting as a proxy for God; their personal motivations are beyond scrutiny? Was it Moses' place to judge the people, despite God changing his mind "So the LORD changed His mind about the harm". Even if God had not changed his mind, I think it's a stretch to say Moses was at all compelled to do what he did. Do you think a character like Jesus would have done the same? I find this highly unlikely. How do you reconcile this with your position? The only variable is the character, what can this tell us about the qualities of those characters.

I don't think there's a need to reconcile things in the way you are asking. It's a story whose historical veracity is one of a religious story, not an actual historical account. If you ask a fundamentalist to reconcile it you may get the argument of harsh necessities or something similar-- though that's a religious argument and not an academic one, which (along with my agnosticism) is why I don't use it. You could speak to an academic who has studied it as literature and they would probably give you an allegorical explanation regarding fealty of the Hebrew people to their god and the consequences of lack of fealty-- I would say this is a useful explanation if you're looking at the symbolism of the literature. Or you could take some opinions from historians and anthropologists who look at its properties outside of simply literature, and you would probably get something along the lines of: it's a religious story, part of a larger religious narrative, explaining the advent of cultural laws (many of which still get applied) to the Hebrew people before written historical accounts, written after-the-fact and assumed religiously true by adherents based on faith.

In case it isn't clear, I subscribe most to the third (historical) type I explained above, and not at all the first (religious) type. Differing explanations from people are going to range somewhere between the first and the third depending on their religious leanings and what they are aware of as far as the historical data from ancient Palestine and Mesopotamia. Some might be surprised to know that the god as the Hebrews described is really different from other gods of the Mid-East / Mesopotamia during those time periods (3000+ years ago) except that the Hebrew god was singular. The Hebrews described their god in emotional extremes much like the gods of the Akkadians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and so on. Many gods of that time were possessive, jealous, and territorial. They were also often considered protective, nurturing, and defensive of their worshipers. As contradictory as it sounds, the Hebrew god was described in all of these ways. The main difference to most people alive today is that, as a whole, we've mostly only heard about one god from that time (the Hebrew god) and not a lot of contrast or comparison to the other gods of that time and place.

I will make one concession, though. As more is known of other gods in that region at the time, these stories begin to seem less stark and remarkable in their extremity, instead having the cultural and sociological markers begin to stand out in terms of locations and dates. As an example: I read the Moses story and what comes to my mind is that these events and environments seem to be detailing areas between lower Palestine and Mesopotamia around (or slightly before) the turn of the first millennium BCE.

No one is saying that what Moses did was moral or justified, only that in the context of the story Moses is supposedly justified and righteous in his execution of the law his god gave him.
Sigh. This is exactly what I'm saying. In the context of the story (in the mind of the author, as per the authors opinion) Moses is supposedly justified, when in reality he is not. If what the author believes was true or generally accepted, it would have grave implications for the behaviour of modern day theists.

Haha. In reality? Well, in reality there's no evidence of any such story ever taking place, even if for a moment we ignore the impracticality and improbability of the act itself. I understand what you are trying to imply-- that religious believers who have faith in the bible as a whole are accepting of wholesale slaughter for religious reasoning-- but I'm responding that since I do not have any such religious faith and yet I'm still pointing out where I find your assertions faulty, that perhaps you should re-examine the source of your assertions and rethink your conclusion. Your assertion doesn't apply to me, and yet I still don't agree with your conclusion. How do you reconcile that?

I have not admitted that killing is a sign of vengeance.
Hence I have made no such claims.

You specifically stated to me:Indeed I have gone several posts away. I'm glad you have emphasised the point that the killing was a result of a vengeful character, it's just you don't think Moses was that character.

Emphasis mine. I did not point out such a thing, and as such I have admitted nothing of the sort. If you are going to make a statement and then claim you never made such a statement you are going to have difficulty when discussing something with someone who doesn't agree with you. So, unless you are willing to clarify how something that you said seemed so obviously to imply one thing and yet mean something else, I'll continue to take you at face value when you make a statement.

That's a bit rich, taking elements that took place after the event, as some kind of proof of Moses' intent. This is, after all, the only item in question, what was the motivation behind Moses' decision, what is the essence of his character. Was he vengeful, or were his intentions pure. Did he think he was dealing out justice?

So, what you're saying is that you didn't read the chapter and you require me to spell it out for you completely? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you read the first half of the chapter you made your original quote from (Exodus 32:28), and it is becoming pretty apparent you didn't read from the beginning. Here's an excerpt from Exodus Ch 32, starting with verse 7: 7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

Again, emphasis is mine, though the text is straight out of Exodus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032&version=9;). I'm not sure if you are catching what is being said there, but before the passage you quote happened, Moses also begged for mercy for his people from his god. And then, just before the passage you originally quoted as your alleged evidence (Exodus 32:27): 27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

So, just before performing the act you claim was one of vengeance on the part of Moses, Moses states to the people he commissioned to perform the work of killing that his god has commanded the action. All of this is written in the verses before the one you originally quoted, by the way. I just wanted to see what your reaction was going to be when I pointed out the second punishment that Moses' god dished out on his own, and you predictably responded in a manner that betrayed how you were not aware that this was the second time Moses pleaded for the lives of his people. Yes, I laid a bit of a rhetorical trap by doing that, but since I was tired of you playing word games I wanted to offer you a chance to save face before I displayed how simply the prior sentences to the passage you claim is so conclusive contradicts what you say.

Well, there are ways to deal out justice without killing, so I think there is more to it. Furthermore the Bible is full of contradictions, they don't simply cancel each another out.

You're changing the subject again. Remember, you were the one who pointed out this passage, so if you honestly believe that you have valid support for your conclusion on that passage I would like to see you address it rather than changing the subject. Otherwise, you could simply accept that perhaps the original context from which you were made aware of the passage could have been mistaken, and that the chapter as a whole paints a slightly different picture than your original assumption.

Well I was specifically referencing the paragraph above your comment.. Though in a broader sense, you have been arguing Moses is not vengeful, rather that the story of Moses is one of a lawgiver. You have taken to describing Moses' actions in a positive light, as a lawgiver, rather than in a negative way, containing an element of vengeance (or whatever negative quality you might ascribe to his actions). My bad for confusing this with a discussion on morality.

Any assumptions of positive or negative are being made completely on your part. Just because someone institutes a law does not make that someone positive or negative. Just because it was Bush who pursued the Patriot Act (and Patriot Act II) does not mean I think he's a swell guy. Your assumption of what you believed I was saying as opposed to what I was actually saying was incorrect. Had you simply asked me if what I was doing was equivocating being a law giver to being a positive person I would have clarified quickly that I make no equivocation one way or the other. Instead you began a succession of flawed morality arguments that have nothing to do with what I was pointing out. My original arguments have not changed.

I had taken this discussion to be, indirectly, a question of Moses' morality. Vengeful is the term I would use to describe his specific action, which lies on the negative side of the spectrum. I've been fishing for a counter-example. It would be wrong of me to press you any further for a moral precedent that substantiates your claim - that wider consideration of context would change the perception of his actions in this instance.

I would suggest that in the future you use the word "brutal" as your description instead of "vengeful" for Moses. While I continue to disagree that Moses expressed vengeance as a character trait, I could agree from historical perspective that Moses was quite often brutal in his execution of the law (though once again I'm not painting that positive or negative).

It's unfortunate I have come across as personally aggressive, I will try to take that on board. I make an exception regarding your comments about me making accusations. I think it's fine to ask 'if you believe in x, does this mean you also believe in y'. Know that some of your comments can be quite barbed (nonetheless perfectly acceptable); you have to accept that responses will be tailored accordingly.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was saying that you are not aggressive. I was providing you with a complimentary comparison to previous posters whom I've had similar disagreements with in this very thread. I was paying you a compliment because I felt that even in disagreement you have remained civil and personable with me. I was basically saying that I appreciated that.

:) I was actively winding this discussion down (insofar as not adding new content). It's been insightful, and my core questions have been addressed. I was just looking for a bit of closure on these final points.

If you would like to call this discussion a day that's fine, but keep in mind what I pointed out above, especially the points where what you mistook as me making a judgment of positive or negative was in fact not related to a moral statement in any way.