Myth Or History?

[PearlSeeker]

Why do so many people believe in God? Do you really think that it is just whim?

I think it's because it makes people feel good, uplifted, easier to cope with life...

 

[Kenny]

I'll bet cash money on the table right now that it wasn't.

Brilliant question. All the more reason to wonder why you find any of the alleged prophecies of the Bible convincing. Do you have any independent attestation for any of this stuff that comes from a more believable source?

BINGO!

#107

Wait, so you're admitting that the archeological evidence for what you're claiming happened is limited? So...you're admitting you have no way of verifying if any of that happened. Correct?

No... I was talking about what you said.

We accept the evidence of witnesses which you do not.

 

[PearlSeeker]

One begins with the 'literal', as presented in the narrative (story) and proceeds to uncover the intent the author wishes to present, a 'truth' that may only be presented through myth.

Myths are imaginative ideas about things unknown and inaccessible to know (undocumented distant past, afterlife, origin of things...). They tell more about human mind/psyche than real objective truth. That's why supernatural elements disappeared with the advent of historiography and documented history.

 

[PearlSeeker]

• Similar stories exist in the Indus Valley and can be shared here in this thread.

• The Meena community believes they are descended from Manu (Noah or Vaivaswat Manu), a local flood that took place at Jalore.View attachment 69415

Yes, ancient civilisations evolved near rivers and rivers flood. Everything else is embellishment.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Myth is the lack of human testimonies.
You may not know or realize this.

The only exclusive way for humans to get to a truth is by means of human testimonies. Ever science behave so, you detect the existence of black holes. Instead you believe black holes exist by means of the testimonies of our scientists as only they are in direct contact of the black holes.
Who met with Zeus? Do you have a bunch of testimonies on how humans met with Zeus?

Now how truths are conveyed.
If the US government has a critical message for its citizens, what should it do? It will have to make use of a mass media to convey the message. The media on the other hand bears the responsibility to identify who is the representative/speaker of the government to get to the authenticated message. By and large, a media bears the reposinsiblity to examine the credibility of the eyewitness as well as the credibility of their stories for a piece of truth to be broadcast to the public. That's the way everyone gets a truth from, exclusively. You get truth from the media, and maybe to your surprise without evidence under most circumstances. While Fox News says that Triump is the president but CNN says Biden, you choose one of them to believe due to the fact that evidence is never made available to you or anyone.

Now the scope of broadcasting by the media. The media must be all state facing such that the message can reach everyone. The US government chooses such a media for message broadcasting simply because the media has the ability to reach all citizens.

God did the same. When He cratfed the Bible (Word/message of God), He appointed Israel as the media for the idenfiication of His chosen representative the prophets. Then the media Israel bears the responsiblity of preaching His message to all mankind but the Israel failed. So now the media is Christianity which bears the responsibility of of broadcasting/preaching the news (gospel) to all mankind. God's media is aiming of mankind facing on day 1 when Christianity the media is established, with an explicit command from above that "the gospel must be preached to all nations" as the ultimate goal.

Do you have a comparable religion? You don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Mostly, you are blinded by the devil to fail to realize that truths are conveyed by testimonies. You are educated, as the devil manipulates, to think that humans need evidence to get to the truths while they don't. Only an extremely small amount of humans can actually get in touch directly with a truth for the rest of human kind to believe what they say (i.e., their testimonies). That's how you misjudge religions to think that they are the same, the same on lacking evidence (evidence = something irrelevant as it belongs to the eyewitness while history = the eyewitnesses are long dead).

You are fooled by the devil, simply because you human intelligence is a joke in comparing to that of the angelic beings.

There is a difference between first hand testimony and hearsay.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Scripture, but I am merely saying to appreciate the fact that God was willing to destroy his entire creation of life-forms on the planet, save Noah and his family,

... and then regret his destruction...

A fact? Seriously?

 

[Ella S.]

I believe that cuts both ways. You haven't rebutted anything I have said other than have an opinion of mathematics vs motivated reasoning.

I have demonstrated that your claim that Jesus's prophecies were so unlikely that they were impossible was false. I have also demonstrated that your belief in the Bible is founded on cognitive bias.

No... you need to re-read. I offered a postulate and then tested it. Your bias is showing

I read your post accurately. What you're calling "testing" is not how one critically tests a hypothesis in accordance with reason. You began with a conclusion and then sought information that would disprove it, rather than forming your conclusions based on evidence.

Nope. - Reading comprehension please

I think you simply haven't fully thought through the implications of the statistical analysis that you've provided.

When something is so extraordinarily unlikely to happen, then it requires extraordinary evidence that it did happen. This would go beyond merely having writings claiming that it happened or archaeological evidence that some parts of those writings might be accurate.

We can be almost certain that you have no such evidence, given the numbers that you have provided, and you can likewise be almost certain that any evidence you think you have is incorrect, again solely based off of the statistics you have provided.

 

[Kenny]

Archeology hasn't confirmed much...

It is painstaking long for sure. I'm not sure they have really found the missing link either.

About prophecies and their their fulfillment - the texts were written after the supposedly events and with confirmation bias at work. The language is not exact, often poetic...

I disagree (although in a few cases it may be so.)

No one has ever fulfilled all messianic promises. Not even Jesus. That's why Christians wait for the second coming and Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah.

That is true. Not all prophecies have yet been fulfilled. For an example, the building of the third Temple.

Jesus was clear that he hadn't fulfilled all prophecies.

How have you personally tested the truth of the Bible? Impact? Doesn't make it true. Johnathan Livingstone Seagull for example has also had much impact...

Absolutely. And certainly ever person has an impact whether for good or for bad. But, as my list suggested, it is more that one reason why I believe it is true.

The more I study it, the more I realize the eternal truths that are there.

 

[Kenny]

I have demonstrated that your claim that Jesus's prophecies were so unlikely that they were impossible was false. I have also demonstrated that your belief in the Bible is founded on cognitive bias.

\
I disagree.

I read your post accurately. What you're calling "testing" is not how one critically tests a hypothesis in accordance with reason. You began with a conclusion and then sought information that would disprove it, rather than forming your conclusions based on evidence.

No, by your statement you actually didn't read it accurately. Apparently you don't understand postulates and theorems.

We can be almost certain that you have no such evidence, given the numbers that you have provided, and you can likewise be almost certain that any evidence you think you have is incorrect, again solely based off of the statistics you have provided.

Again, no. We have recorded eye witness and a biography written from a person who spoke to those who were eye-witnesses.

 

[Ella S.]

I disagree.

This is an irrelevant claim and not a valid counter-argument. If you disagree for a rational reason, you should be able to provide a better justification for your disagreement.

No, by your statement you actually didn't read it accurately. Apparently you don't understand postulates and theorems.

Also not a counter-argument, merely a vague claim that I'm wrong and don't understand without explanation.

You can assert that I'm wrong, and you can even attempt to redefine "postulates and theorems," but it won't change the fact that your approach is a form of confirmation bias. You would have to demonstrate that it isn't.

Again, no. We have recorded eye witness and a biography written from a person who spoke to those who were eye-witnesses.

How does this contradict what I said? If anything, your evidence is worse than I was giving you, because I was steel-manning your argument. You don't even mention any relevant archaeological evidence, only the written accounts.

I think I'm just going to call this thread here. I think I'm probably just overwhelming you at this point, which I have to apologize for. If you would like some help in learning how to form logical counter-arguments and understanding the nature of dialectic, my DMs are open. I didn't mean to dogpile you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why?

..because God is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe, and has no partner?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think it's because it makes people feel good..

That's not what I see .. did it make Jesus feel good to be persecuted?
Did it make Muhammad feel good to be persecuted, and have to conspire to kill people?
I very much doubt it.

Many people with strong faith have been persecuted .. it is not all a "bed of roses".
It is a conviction, come what may.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is a difference between first hand testimony and hearsay.

What are you saying?
That what we know of Jesus and Muhammad are merely hearsay?
Hmm, not very plausible, I don't think.

 

[Left Coast]

BINGO!

#107

Yes, bingo, you don't have a way to verify what happened. Which was part of the original criteria.

No... I was talking about what you said.

We accept the evidence of witnesses which you do not.

What witnesses? The texts in question don't even claim to be first person witness narratives.




[/QUOTE]

 

[PearlSeeker]

Most myths begin with actual events, but are then morphed as they're told and retold to better represent the idealized truths that the recounters feel the events signify.

The thing to understand is that the actual events are no longer relevant to the purpose of presenting the mythical story to others. So whatever degree of actual history remains intact is irrelevant. And so, therefor, is this whole argument about whether or not someone believes the mythical story to be historical.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER.

Historical accuracy is not required for a mythical story to successfully represent the truth. So whether or not a myth is or isn't historically accurate is just plain irrelevant. We all suspend our disbelief for the sake of any story's cohesion and purpose. Some, only for the duration of the telling, and others for a longer time according to their own desire. But again, this has nothing to do with the purpose of the story, nor it's ability to represent an idealized truth.

But of course this debate will rage on, anyway, because the egos involved will not be dissuaded. No matter how pointless the position they hold forth, is.

So a story is a story. It can't serve as an evidence of God revealing Himself to man.

 

[PearlSeeker]

..because God is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe, and has no partner?

And we know that because the Bible says so, right? Circular reasoning.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That's not what I see .. did it make Jesus feel good to be persecuted?
Did it make Muhammad feel good to be persecuted, and have to conspire to kill people?
I very much doubt it.

Many people with strong faith have been persecuted .. it is not all a "bed of roses".
It is a conviction, come what may.

You misunderstood me. I know people were persecuted. Even in today's free societies some atheists have contemptuous attitude toward believers... This of course doesn't make life easier. But all these believing people had hope, purpose, comfort, trust that their life is in God's hands... This is what I meant with "easier to cope with life" (and death).

 

[PearlSeeker]

What are you saying?
That what we know of Jesus and Muhammad are merely hearsay?
Hmm, not very plausible, I don't think.

Yes. There is no written first hand account about Jesus.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And we know that because the Bible says so, right?

NO, the Bible doesn't "say" anything.
The authors of texts in the Bible are witnesses, and I accept their testimonies. I also accept that the Qur'an is the literal word of God dictated to Muhammad.
It all fits neatly together, and I haven't found any reason to doubt it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

all these believing people had hope, purpose, comfort, trust that their life is in God's hands... This is what I meant with "easier to cope with life" (and death).

Absolutely, yes.
..but one has to take the rough with the smooth .. it is far from easy at times, and faith rises and falls.