Theology in WoT

[Luckers]

Actually I meant the process of recieving revelation from God, not the Revelation of St. John the Divine.

 

Oh, ok... yeah i cant really respond to that.

 

The "supposedly" is the key there. What I meant was, have you gotten in a time machine, gone back to 3000 or 4200 BC, and read what the person who was there wrote.

 

I more then agree about the dubiousness of that particular text, which is why i acknowledged it in my response, and neither cited nor used it in any true basis. Those texts i did cite i am certain of. We can verify the veracity of texts written in that time... so your quip about a time machine is both invalid and a little offensive... you should know that i dont accept things on face value... trust, but verify, is my motto.

 

What you don't see is that you claim faith should not be used, but you place faith in scholars, other men and women. You have not gone to each of their dig sites to personally verify their work. You have not independently researched their dating methods to ensure they work. And you have not travelled through time to make sure they actually got it right.

 

I'm sorry but i have personally verefied all texts that i examine, and i dont appreciate your implication that i havn't.. It does not really nessistate travelling to digs... since these texts with the exception of the Gospels of Thomas and Que, have not been dug up. I have also personally researched the dating of the texts that i suggested... as should show in that i comment when there is a discrepency... do you think the fact that i know that the Book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt, despite its author claiming it was written 200 years before hand came out of thin air?

 

No Robert, ive done the leg work in coming to my opinions, and if you wish to challange any specific point or text go for it, but your generic dismissals reak of a lack of any true knowledge or investigations. You attack methodology because then you dont have to be specific. Follow your faith interpretation... i wont begrudge you it, but please dont imply that ive skimped at some point. If you wanna challange me then challange my facts, not me myself, thats poor form, and beneath you.

 

Also, dont take the sharpness out of context... i thoroughly enjoy our conversations... but come on man... your better than underhanded attacks at my method.

 

Obviously those actions would be impossible, for different reasons. Humans have to operate on faith at some level, because we are limited. You choose to place your faith in scholarship. I choose to place mine in God.

 

I place my faith in that which i can indepedently verify, you in what can't be challanged.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I'm sorry but i have personally verefied all texts that i examine, and i dont appreciate your implication that i havn't

 

How? How can you be sure. Do you have the original copies of all those manuscripts? You're trusting someone else's word, somewhere along the way.

 

I place my faith in that which i can indepedently verify, you in what can't be challanged.

 

I have actually gone through the process of secular education, you know ... it is impossible to personally verify everything, there simply isn't enough time.

 

I agree that it is impossible to challenge my claim to personal revelation, and so it is unfair in the sense of a scholarly debate. But that's my point. The context of these problems is outside the realm of scholarly debate. No matter what has been written, no one has experimentally proven or disproven the existence and nature of God or Satan. Whatever you read is someone's opinion, at some point in history.

 

please dont imply that ive skimped at some point.

 

I didn't mean to imply a personal lack of effort on your part. No one can do it. It is simply impossible to verify empirically all of the things that religionists and sociologists and historians talk about, because we can't travel through time to check the source.

 

You trust translators, unless you've learned Egyptian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, Arabic, Farsi, and several other languages. In fact, even if you have learned all of those, you're trusting your teachers to tell you how the languages have shifted in 1000-4000 years. All scholarship is based, on some level, on trust. What is trust if not a form of faith?

 

I am attacking the methodology in the sense that I am attacking the claim that it requires no faith. "Scientists" state that they do not use faith, but everyone on this earth does.

[Luckers]

How? How can you be sure. Do you have the original copies of all those manuscripts? You're trusting someone else's word, somewhere along the way.

 

Actually no, for every one (with the possible exemption of the Gospels of Thomas and Que, which i have already acknowledged) of those texts i put forward there is an unbroken line of provable translations.

 

I'm sorry dude, but i gotta say this. Please stop attacking the texts without backup information. I've studied the lines of authentication... when you have, and you wanna question something in it, do so. Until then im sorry but i have to veto you.

 

I have actually gone through the process of secular education, you know ... it is impossible to personally verify everything, there simply isn't enough time.

 

It is. It is not however impossible to verify the legitability of commentaries written 1000 to 3000 years ago. Nor is it impossible to verify wether or not those texts have since been altered... which is again, something ive specifically studied.

 

I agree that it is impossible to challenge my claim to personal revelation, and so it is unfair in the sense of a scholarly debate. But that's my point. The context of these problems is outside the realm of scholarly debate. No matter what has been written, no one has experimentally proven or disproven the existence and nature of God or Satan. Whatever you read is someone's opinion, at some point in history.

 

And when your questioning the role of a character such as Satan, peoples opinion are important. That no one reguarded Satan as evil until after (specifically) 448BCE IS significant. Similarily an examination in the alteration of that opinion when referenced against social and political influence (like for instance the influence of dualistic zoroasterianism on this particular alteration) is also significant.

 

People are not simply saying "You know what dude, i totally think Satan was awesome before the Babylonians came."

 

Yes, the study of religion is done by humans, and therefore is not absolute... so what. We reference holy texts, contemporary texts, archelogical information, contemporary commentaries and so forth. It is the constructions of factually backed theories.

 

Like what we do on these boards, if you wanna questions either the facts, or the deductions made from them, go ahead. I'd really enjoy it. But if all your gonna do is summarily dismiss things then im sorry, because i have no time for that.

 

I didn't mean to imply a personal lack of effort on your part. No one can do it. It is simply impossible to verify empirically all of the things that religionists and sociologists and historians talk about, because we can't travel through time to check the source.

 

Then dude, challange me. Challange anything i have said. Any text i have entered into this debate in support. Find something wrong... i dare you.

 

Because I HAVE done the leg work, and unlike you i know what i am speaking of, my texts stand. And until and unless you can prove me wrong--which i have no problem with, mind.

[Luckers]

Again, sorry for the second post, my browser is still screwing up.

 

You trust translators, unless you've learned Egyptian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, Arabic, Farsi, and several other languages. In fact, even if you have learned all of those, you're trusting your teachers to tell you how the languages have shifted in 1000-4000 years. All scholarship is based, on some level, on trust. What is trust if not a form of faith?

 

True, i cannot personally translate these texts, aside from those in Avestan and Sanskrit... and them only to a degree. Yet do you think i cannot crossreference? I examine multiple translations in my study.

 

I'm sorry, but im reminded of Bob's arguments against trusting RJ's quotes...

 

I am attacking the methodology in the sense that I am attacking the claim that it requires no faith. "Scientists" state that they do not use faith, but everyone on this earth does.

 

I addressed this... trust, have faith... then verify.

 

I do not deny that deductivity is utilized. Logic exists purely for the purpose of constructing deductions that are supported. And that is the difference. The arguments of scholars have to be supported by verifiable evidence. Those that use God need only the word God, and they can say anything.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I addressed this... trust, have faith... then verify

 

I can't question or challenge your methodology until you state it ... how did you "verify" that:

 

the Book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt, despite its author claiming it was written 200 years before hand came out of thin air?

 

As soon as you tell me how you verified it, I'll tell you whose word you're putting faith in. Because you were not alive during the Maccabean revolt, or during the Babylonian captivity, when Daniel was supposed to be alive. You are trusting a human source, no matter what you do, in any form of scholarship. Unless you were actually there, you're trusting someone else's word.

 

You trust their word. I trust God. Its faith either way.

 

If I were feeling cynical, I could say that you trust their word because you can make it say whatever is comfortable for you, they're dead. Of course, if you were feeling cynical, you could say that I can make "God" say whatever makes me feel comfortable, he's not here. I just want you to see that you're using faith every bit as much as I am. If you reference ANY historical source, you are putting faith in that source. You can't "verify" it, beacuse you weren't there. You don't even have access to the original texts, or the texts that those original authors referenced, 99 percent of the time.

 

Thats the difference between emprical sciences like physics and chemistry, and social "sciences" like history and religious studies. If someone tells you that burning aluminum in oxygen wil produce aluminum oxide, you can go get some aluminum and try it out. If you read a text that says "in 3000 BC X occurred" and you base any conclusions on that, you just put faith in that author, because you can't go to 3000 BC and check it out.

[Trib4l]

Luckers, while I am always amazed at your ability to define anything logically and completely, I am not actually surprised that you cannot handle the Bible. I respect you a great deal.

 

I agree there are many stories in the Bible that have links and similarities to other faiths and cultures, some that predate and some that don't.

 

I think the reason that you have such a hard time without commentaries and the like is that you are ascribing human tendencies, desires, motives, etc... to a being that by all understanding is far outside the bounds of human understanding. If you stop trying to understand, analyze, compartmentalize, deconstruct and rationalize something that is beyond human ability to comprehend, you might just find something that is beyond the value of words.

 

Robert is right - regardless of what source you trust, you are still trusting something, which is the cornerstone of faith. You are placing faith in something someone else has attested to, regardless of your own interpretations.

 

I'll ask you this: how is it that every religion spawned before and many long after faiths founded on the God of Abraham have passed away? What other faith can claim 5000+ years of recorded history? Of course you could argue that wars, pestilence, etc... could have destroyed those civilizations and caused the extinction of said faiths. Yet I would still ask you how one root faith could survive where so many others have failed.

 

There is a reason - God is real. Perhaps imperceivable to those who would seek him through "human" methods, but nonetheless real to a great many people.

[Luckers]

As soon as you tell me how you verified it, I'll tell you whose word you're putting faith in. Because you were not alive during the Maccabean revolt, or during the Babylonian captivity, when Daniel was supposed to be alive. You are trusting a human source, no matter what you do, in any form of scholarship. Unless you were actually there, you're trusting someone else's word.

 

Simple. The Book of Daniel is remarkably accurate about events in the Maccabean revolt, but remarkably unacurate about events that were taking place in his own time. This is what led to the deeper study of it--specifically cross-referencing the described events in both time with events that can be verefied, through either multiple contemporary commentary, or provable archeological evidence.

 

Upon that you realise from sentence structure, and alterations in the language, that the book has indeed been written by two different people (in much the same way you would be able to tell the difference between something written today, and something written in the 17th century)and more specifically that the linguistic divulgences coincide with the descriptions of the maccabean revolt and the wrongful retelling of events in the diaspora. Then i went and researched the translation, and commentaries written on the translation noting that the adaption of language between different parts in the Book of Daniel WERE present in the original hebrew.

 

Yes, i trust there, but then i again verify... the credentials in this case. And getting second and third opinions. Trust only goes so far.

 

From there i formulate a supported opinion, that parts of the Book of Daniel were in fact written 200 years after the original. The final path, as with theories on here, is to look into what other scholars have said on the issue, seeing if that have picked up on details i have missed, or had some viable counter-argument. They didn't.

 

You trust their word. I trust God. Its faith either way.

 

I trust nothing. Anything I use by another scholar, i examine the evidence they have for that assertation, i assess their credentials, and i do not utilize just one source. I utilize, usually, at least 6, more often 10.

 

If I were feeling cynical, I could say that you trust their word because you can make it say whatever is comfortable for you, they're dead.

 

I cannot. Their deductions and their factual backing is well stated. Moreover, not all are dead. I have to show backing for every deduction i make or my works will be ripped apart.

 

If you reference ANY historical source, you are putting faith in that source. You can't "verify" it, beacuse you weren't there. You don't even have access to the original texts, or the texts that those original authors referenced, 99 percent of the time.

 

And i've had about enough. You really need to dismiss the work of scholars, dont you? Yet i note that you do not address and of the facts i have raised, any of the deductions i have made. You only make empty comments about the method that are not only wrong, but mildly offensive.

[Luckers]

As soon as you tell me how you verified it, I'll tell you whose word you're putting faith in. Because you were not alive during the Maccabean revolt, or during the Babylonian captivity, when Daniel was supposed to be alive. You are trusting a human source, no matter what you do, in any form of scholarship. Unless you were actually there, you're trusting someone else's word.

 

Simple. The Book of Daniel is remarkably accurate about events in the Maccabean revolt, but remarkably unacurate about events that were taking place in his own time. This is what led to the deeper study of it--specifically cross-referencing the described events in both time with events that can be verefied, through either multiple contemporary commentary, or provable archeological evidence.

 

Upon that you realise from sentence structure, and alterations in the language, that the book has indeed been written by two different people (in much the same way you would be able to tell the difference between something written today, and something written in the 17th century)and more specifically that the linguistic divulgences coincide with the descriptions of the maccabean revolt and the wrongful retelling of events in the diaspora. Then i went and researched the translation, and commentaries written on the translation noting that the adaption of language between different parts in the Book of Daniel WERE present in the original hebrew.

 

Yes, i trust there, but then i again verify... the credentials in this case. And getting second and third opinions. Trust only goes so far.

 

From there i formulate a supported opinion, that parts of the Book of Daniel were in fact written 200 years after the original. The final path, as with theories on here, is to look into what other scholars have said on the issue, seeing if that have picked up on details i have missed, or had some viable counter-argument. They didn't.

 

You trust their word. I trust God. Its faith either way.

 

I trust nothing. Anything I use by another scholar, i examine the evidence they have for that assertation, i assess their credentials, and i do not utilize just one source. I utilize, usually, at least 6, more often 10.

 

If I were feeling cynical, I could say that you trust their word because you can make it say whatever is comfortable for you, they're dead.

 

I cannot. Their deductions and their factual backing is well stated. Moreover, not all are dead. I have to show backing for every deduction i make or my works will be ripped apart.

 

If you reference ANY historical source, you are putting faith in that source. You can't "verify" it, beacuse you weren't there. You don't even have access to the original texts, or the texts that those original authors referenced, 99 percent of the time.

 

And i've had about enough. You really need to dismiss the work of scholars, dont you? Yet i note that you do not address and of the facts i have raised, any of the deductions i have made. You only make empty comments about the method that are not only wrong, but mildly offensive.

 

I think the reason that you have such a hard time without commentaries and the like is that you are ascribing human tendencies, desires, motives, etc... to a being that by all understanding is far outside the bounds of human understanding. If you stop trying to understand, analyze, compartmentalize, deconstruct and rationalize something that is beyond human ability to comprehend, you might just find something that is beyond the value of words.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a hard time... the commentaries, archeological evidence, letters written in that time, all support deductions made about the bible as a human text... there is no hard time....

 

As for the rest, yes my examination of the bible is of it as a human text. I used to be catholic and at one stage i did look to it for spiritual guidence, but it is too inconsistant. So... no. The deconstruction of the bible is a massively fascinating undertaking. There is so much in there to study.

 

Robert is right - regardless of what source you trust, you are still trusting something, which is the cornerstone of faith. You are placing faith in something someone else has attested to, regardless of your own interpretations.

 

Since when? I demand proof of them as much as anyone else. What precisely do you think i do? Find one person, listen to what he says, and decide that it is fact... that is the perview of religion, not accadamia. I study many sources, requiring evidence of ALL of their assertions before i trust.

 

I'll ask you this: how is it that every religion spawned before and many long after faiths founded on the God of Abraham have passed away? What other faith can claim 5000+ years of recorded history? Of course you could argue that wars, pestilence, etc... could have destroyed those civilizations and caused the extinction of said faiths. Yet I would still ask you how one root faith could survive where so many others have failed.

 

Every religion? I'm sorry... what? Shinto still exists, as do the religions of Cybelle in what was Mesopatamia and they both date back over 5,000 years Hinduism--and if your counting the progression of root faiths, Buddhism and Jainism too--has survived that length of time. Confucianism and Daoism still exist in communist (athiest) china, showing how strong they were as religions. Aboriginal religion dates back 40,000 years, and there are pagan religions like Benne Magie and Bon that have survived that long inspite of open persecution from Christianity.

 

I'm sorry, but the Judeo-Christian faith is not special in the things you have described... or alone.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Yes, i trust there, but then i again verify... the credentials in this case.

 

Verifying someone's credentials does not verify their work as infallible. You are still trusting them.

 

Yes, i trust there

 

I trust nothing.

 

Which is it?

 

Moreover, not all are dead.

 

I was talking about the original authors/theologists/prophets. You know, Moses, Daniel, Zoroaster, Siddharta Gautama, Mohammed, Paul, those guys.

 

You only make empty comments about the method that are not only wrong, but mildly offensive.

 

Its understandable that you would be angry. You've chosen this as the basis for your life, and I'm challenging it. The fact is, all of your verification, checking sources, credentials, all of it, is trusting someone, somewhere else.

 

This is simply a fact. You haven't lived long enough, no one can live long enough to personally duplicate the work of thousands of historians, sociologists, archaeologists, etc. Its just not possible. Since you cannot personally duplicate all their work, learn all of those languages, visit all those places, retranslate all those texts, then your conclusions citing their work are based on faith. I'm not implying any lack of due diligence on your part. All humans in a society exist in a world based on faith.

 

I study many sources, requiring evidence of ALL of their assertions before i trust.

 

Even studying many different sources, you are still trusting them. And what evidence do you require? Lets examine your "evidence" about the Book of Daniel, since its a case in point.

 

The Book of Daniel is remarkably accurate about events in the Maccabean revolt, but remarkably unacurate about events that were taking place in his own time.

 

How do you know about the events in the Maccabean revolt? You weren't there. You trust an account, or combination of accounts, recorded by historians.

 

The same applies to events in "his own time". You have no personal knowledge of those, not having been there at the time. You are trusting the account or accounts of another person or persons.

 

This is what led to the deeper study of it--specifically cross-referencing the described events in both time with events that can be verefied, through either multiple contemporary commentary, or provable archeological evidence.

 

Have you verified the methodologies of all those archaeologists? Visited the digs yourself to see what they missed? Have you visited the past to ensure that their conclusions are correct? You cannot have done ALL of that. You are trusting those archaeologists.

 

Then i went and researched the translation, and commentaries written on the translation noting that the adaption of language between different parts in the Book of Daniel WERE present in the original hebrew.

 

As you admit, you are trusting the translators there, since you did not include Hebrew in the languages you translate yourself.

 

Yet do you think i cannot crossreference? I examine multiple translations in my study.

 

Cross-referencing is still trusting a group of scholars. You are just deciding which one to trust.

 

From there i formulate a supported opinion, that parts of the Book of Daniel were in fact written 200 years after the original.

 

Supported by? The conclusions of other scholars, which you have compared and contrasted, choosing which one to trust.

 

The final path, as with theories on here, is to look into what other scholars have said on the issue, seeing if that have picked up on details i have missed, or had some viable counter-argument. They didn't.

 

They didn't. And you trust them.

 

Can you see? It is a form of faith, as much as what I have, simply placed in "scholarship" rather than God. Humans do not have the capacity to independently reverify for themselves all the facts of the universe. That is why in all social settings we teach one another. But teaching, and learning from teachers, is based on trust, founded on faith. Books are nothing but teachers by proxy.

 

Since you have thought yourself "above" faith, you don't like to hear that. But it nevertheless remains the case.

[SinisterDeath]

I think I know what your tactic here is Robert.

Escentially your entire arguement is on the basis that somewhere along the lines luckers has to put faith in something inorder to draw his conclusions.

Key word here is faith.

The other key part to this is, your faith is in god. God is infaliable.

Luckers 'faith' is in a human. Humans are Falable. Thusly, your faith is more accurate then luckers, so obviously whatever he has just drew conclusions on is truncated by the infalable faith...

Am I right?

What if luckers said he has faith in the big giant spegatti monster, and that the people he got his texts from, wrote the word of the spegatti monster much the same way as david and all those other guys did? Would that in anyway make his conclusions more valid?

 

I hope that makes sense.... As I had another post strikingly similar to this but it mysteriously disapeared.

*Shifty Eyes searching for the strings at hand*

[RobertAlexWillis]

Actually, Sinister, I wasn't going to bring up the infallability of God, since that is a part of my faith in Him.

 

I am simply pointing out that "social scientists", or "cultural relativists", or "Oprah worshippers", or "Christians", or anybody operates on faith on some level. It is disingenuous for Luckers, or me, or anybody to pretend otherwise. And, as such, in an empirical sense, science should regard my faith in God as just as valid as his faith in humans. So-called "social scientists" consistently dismiss faith based conclusions as biased and in some cases, as delusional. Certainly such things are treated with contempt. Witness Luckers' staunch refusal to characterize any of his actions as based on trust or faith.

 

Historical scholars say they have "proof" that things are or were a certain way. Yet ask a "scholar" a hundred years ago, and he would have said something different. Ask a "scholar" a hundred years from now, and he will say something different again. The explanations of the moment are taken by the people of that moment on faith.

[Luckers]

What if luckers said he has faith in the big giant spegatti monster, and that the people he got his texts from, wrote the word of the spegatti monster much the same way as david and all those other guys did? Would that in anyway make his conclusions more valid?

 

Dude... there is no what if about it. The Spaghetti Monster is my Lord and Master.

 

As for you Robert... you have no grounds to attack my facts, do you? So you try and attack my methodology, and do so in a way that again does not actually require you to support your attack.

 

So tell you what, ill concide if you can show me ONE place were i have simply agreed with a theory. ONE place were i have not gone back and done the led work, examined the evidence for and against and verefied the assertations made.

 

You won't find one. Like with WoT, when i state something, i back it up. I cannot go into WoT either and see it for myself, it does not make my theories a thing of faith, because again i do the leg work.

 

So you know what, im gonna remove that offer. Either address the facts and sources i have shown, or stop bothering me. Hell, if my arguments are such a product of faith, it should be easy for you to disprove my claims... Go for it.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Obviously Luckers, I have offended you. I apologize, as that has never been my intention.

 

So tell you what, ill concide if you can show me ONE place were i have simply agreed with a theory.

 

I listed several, all referencing the example of the Book of Daniel.

 

ONE place were i have not gone back and done the led work, examined the evidence for and against and verefied the assertations made.

 

Cite me the sources you have read regarding the Book of Daniel, and I will tell you what work you have not personally done.

 

I cannot go into WoT either and see it for myself, it does not make my theories a thing of faith, because again i do the leg work.

 

Yet your "leg work" consists simply of checking sources written by someone else. In the case of the Wheel of Time, you simply trust the Creator of that world, Robert Jordan. In essence, your "facts" about the Wheel of Time are the result of revelation from the "god" of the Wheel of Time.

 

The sources you check in real life are those of other scholars. Therefore, you are trusting those scholars, individually or as a group. Why are you offended by the fact that your "knowledge" is based on trust?

 

Hell, if my arguments are such a product of faith, it should be easy for you to disprove my claims... Go for it.

 

I will prove that you have not sone your "leg work" as soon as you prove that God has not spoken to me. I am only attacking your methodology in the same sense that you are attacking mine. You simply choose not to see it that way.

 

I mean, if God is not real, it should be easy for you to disprove my claims ... Go for it.

[tntviper1]

since there is no god, isn't this thread kind of useless?