We have accounts from 2000 years ago

[Zzyzx]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

[Kenisaw]

Because if you are living your life based upon accounts of Jesus from 2000 years ago in today's society, you would necessarily need to be living on promises of some imagined afterlife.

Well I suppose that would depend on how one interprets the text. I'm not sure anyone can make a definitive statement of how people would interpret any particular text. Maybe the Pope could... Are you Pope?

If I may jump in here, there is a huge logical problem with this. There are basically three possibilities one can consider about what the Bible states. It is 1) entirely literal 2) part literal and part figurative 3) entirely figurative.

#3 makes no sense, because that means everything in there is figurative, including anything stating that a god exists. If "god exists" is just figurative for something else, which could include the reality that god doesn't exist, then there is nothing in there that one could base their dogma on and be confident that they are right.

#2 is where most believers seem to fall. Problem is, there is nothing in the Bible directing anyone to take one part literally and some other part figuratively. Which means, just like option #3, it is ultimately pure guesswork as to what is really meant in the "figurative" parts, on top of the problem that one can't even be sure if the figurative part is actually figurative or if it is supposed to be literal.

Which leaves #1, which is the only logical course of action. The only way to be sure that one is right is to take the word of the god creature literally. Too bad that taking the entire bible literally is impossible given the copious amounts of known falsehoods, blatant contradictions, and false logic loops that exist in the claims.

In short, you can't take the bible any which way without intellectual conflict...

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 71 by Kenisaw]

Interesting post, so in the light of the above, how can one make the statement that accepting A when it comes to scripture MUST mean one accepts B when there are such a wide range of interprétations possible. Which was my point.

[marco]

[Replying to post 37 by marco]

You seem to be taking issue because I actually suggested that there are some things in Christ's reported speeches that rank with what Plato might have said.

Pretty much. I don't see much, if any, hidden wisdom in Jesus speeches. Purely my opinion, but Jesus didn't say anything all that profound. Yeah, he taught to be nice to one another. He also apparently taught to love him and that those who follow him should expect to lose contact with their families.

That's a bit harsh, riku. Plato doesn't make huge points either -justice is giving every man his due, and then the usual follow up to catch his pupils out. Sometimes simplicity can be deceptive. The parables: The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, for example, are fictions seemingly composed ad hoc and their simplicity illustrates something that wasn't taken for granted then.

One must admire a good song regardless of who sings it. I don't feel I have to condemn everything Christian or accept all that an atheist says.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 43 by bluethread]

I was replying to a point you had raised. You seemed to me to be making the point that modern governance is based on the teachings of Socrates et al, yet trying to portray these teachings as having their foundations built on sand because we aren't sure if Socrates et al were even real people.
Which is far from the case. The validity (or lack thereof) of the teachings of these men rests not one whit on whether or not these men were ever real, teachings having been attributed to them for whatever reason.
Contrast that with the Jesus claims, and like the quote I pulled says...they require Jesus the resurrected Son of God to have been real.

The OP asks about accounts "which may or may not be true and accurate." I did mention that those philosophers may not have even existed, but that was not a requirement of the OP. Your point that they need not have actually lived for what they teach to be important does address that latter point. However, regarding your contrast to Yeshua, how does that counter my contention, "The point of the OP that societies should not allow ancient writings to influence their lives is just not valid." You seem to be supporting that contention, not opposing it.

Z, the OP, asks whether we should base life decisions on accounts from 2,000 years ago that we are unsure are true.
When it comes to Socrates, no problem there. Nothing Socrates taught requires Socrates to have been a real person.
The same cannot be said when it comes to Jesus. Committing to worship of Jesus entails one being sure that Jesus was a real person, that he was the resurrected Son of God. I've lost count of the number of people who say they follow Jesus's teachings not because they make sense in and of themselves, but because Jesus was (supposedly) divine and thus knew/knows better.

I guess you could have that discussion with those people, when they make those arguments. However, nothing in the OP even referred to any distinction other than the accounts being old and unverifiable. I did add emphasis to that point by stating that the people listed may not have existed. However, when you say, "Contrast that with your Jesus." I made no claims in that regard, nor have I even referred to the things mentioned. I just pointed out, by examining some examples that meet the OP criteria, that basing life decisions on ancient accounts is not uncommon. I am then told by one poster that my observations are not relevant and by another that I am somehow obligated to justify the reasoning of a "number of people" regarding an ancient account that neither I nor the OP even mentioned.

Let's presume that those "people" are wrong. How does that change what I have said? Does that show that people, regardless of theology, do not base life decisions on ancient accounts? No, it just shows that there are some ancient accounts that you think people should not base life decisions on for various reasons. Well, I also think that there are certain ancient accounts that people should not base life decisions on for various reasons. The bottom line is that the age and verifiability of an account is just one factor in making such a determination.

[bluethread]

I don't see any Biblical dogma in that and I have not attempted to defend any. I have merely shown, by example, that much of our society is dependent on basing life decisions on accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. Let me ask you, on what should one base one's life decisions?

.
I know you haven't attempted to defend any, which was the point.

You haven't shown that much of our society is basing life decisions on accounts from 2000 years ago. You've mentioned 2300 years ago, or 2400 years ago, but nothing from 2000 years ago. But if you want to stray from the OP, that is of couer your choice.

Nice attempt at irony. However, I did refer to Seneca and Tacitus. Also, in my initial post, I referred to the discussions of democracy, republic, diplomacy, warfare, idealism, and pragmatism, just to name a few. Are you saying that we can learn nothing from the ancients? If so, why are our tax dollars spent on teaching them? I probably shouldn't have asked that. There are plenty of people who are already calling for us to jettison the classics, for text messages and video games.

To answer your question, I think one should base their life decisions on all the available data and information that they can get their hands on.

Good, me to, and that includes ancient accounts, even if they can not be verified as historically accurate.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are you saying that we can learn nothing from the ancients?

Few would say that we can learn NOTHING from ancients. However, most recognize that modern knowledge far surpasses that of ancients, that ancients were prone to propose supernatural “explanations� for what they did not understand, that ancients often mixed fact and fantasy, and that ancients often had incorrect notions about cause-and-effect relationships.

Would any rational person recommend basing anyone's learning about the Earth, the environment, astronomy, navigation, engineering, medicine, laws, cultural practices, etc from ancients?

What makes anyone think that ancients provided any more accurate information about gods than they did about causes of diseases, droughts and storms, or about the Earth?

To answer your question, I think one should base their life decisions on all the available data and information that they can get their hands on.

Good, me to, and that includes ancient accounts, even if they can not be verified as historically accurate.

I would add a qualification: “base decisions on accurate, verifiable information from multiple disconnected sources�.

What is the motivation for seeking learning from accounts that cannot be shown to be truthful, accurate, and applicable to current life?

[liamconnor]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

Your question is vague and so I am not sure what you mean. Do You mean 1) we have accounts of all history reporting events 2000 years ago--from Homer to Herodotus through Lucian to Plutarch through Luke of the N.T.? And 2) we have only the degree of certitude that HISTORY as a science yields...?

And 3) What are these life decisions you indicate? I am a Christian. How do you think your life (in the concrete, i.e. ostensibly) differs that much from my own? Our Sunday mornings are probably different; the beginning of our meals may be different; perhaps there are some behaviors which I will abstain from which you will indulge. Other than that....?

[Danmark]

I am a Christian. How do you think your life (in the concrete, i.e. ostensibly) differs that much from my own? Our Sunday mornings are probably different; the beginning of our meals may be different; perhaps there are some behaviors which I will abstain from which you will indulge. Other than that....?

You're right. It probably does not make much difference whether or not you are a Christian.

[Clownboat]

Likewise if the Bible tells us not to massacre people we already accept this. We're not taking Biblical advice in following common morality.

It seems to me that the common morality is based on Christianity. Even if not, my moral is based on the Bible and Bible is the reason why understand certain things are wrong and my moral is not just because someone said that “this is common moral, obey it, or…�.

Unfortunately it seems to me that moral nowadays is rather based on fear of punishment and surveillance cameras than understanding of what is really right and wrong.

To the bold:
What things do you understand to be wrong, due to the Bible?

[bluethread]

.

Are you saying that we can learn nothing from the ancients?

Few would say that we can learn NOTHING from ancients. However, most recognize that modern knowledge far surpasses that of ancients, that ancients were prone to propose supernatural “explanations� for what they did not understand, that ancients often mixed fact and fantasy, and that ancients often had incorrect notions about cause-and-effect relationships.

Would any rational person recommend basing anyone's learning about the Earth, the environment, astronomy, navigation, engineering, medicine, laws, cultural practices, etc from ancients?

What makes anyone think that ancients provided any more accurate information about gods than they did about causes of diseases, droughts and storms, or about the Earth?

As with all information, one needs to recognize the intended purpose. My personal knowledge surpasses yours in many ways, ie. detail of my personal life and community. However, I do not reject your views as a basis for certain decisions. Do I base my learning about the Earth, the environment, astronomy, navigation, engineering, medicine entirely on ancient accounts? Of course not. Do I incorporate my knowledge of ancient accounts in my views on laws, cultural practices, etc. ? Yes, I do. What makes me believe that ancient information regarding deities is accurate? To the extent that it applies, the same thing that causes me to believe what causes diseases, droughts and storms, or about the Earth? Best guess based on all available information, including ancient accounts. Do modern methods tell us all the causes of diseases, droughts and storms, or about the Earth? No, if they did there wouldn't be pleas from government and private organization seeking further funding. Do the things modern methods propose as causes of diseases, droughts and storms always dictate the actual causes in specific cases? No, wise doctors and predictors of weather look at various sources of information and apply them to specific situations with varying degrees of certainty. That said, the social "sciences" are even more uncertain than medicine and weather, so such things as laws and cultural practices are even more dependent on judgment.

To answer your question, I think one should base their life decisions on all the available data and information that they can get their hands on.

Good, me to, and that includes ancient accounts, even if they can not be verified as historically accurate.

I would add a qualification: “base decisions on accurate, verifiable information from multiple disconnected sources�.

What is the motivation for seeking learning from accounts that cannot be shown to be truthful, accurate, and applicable to current life?

Are there any more conditions you would like to add? I have no doubt that one can come up with a scenario that excludes everything one does not wish to take into account. That said, as I eluded to before, things such as truthfulness, accuracy and applicability to current life are often judgment calls based in the specific purpose. So, the motivation of seeking learning from ancient accounts, like the seeking of all learning, is to determine truthfulness, accuracy and applicability to current life. If you see none there, then I guess there is no value to you, apart from support for your view that no value exists. However, to those of us who do see such things there, there is great value. It is the nature of value is that it is determined by the consumer, not the observer.