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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

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 state that your "personal knowledge surpasses" that of Zzyzx is totally misleading. While it may be true that you have personal knowledge of things which Zzyzx, or I, or anyone else does not have, the same could be said of any four year old child. But to claim that the four year old child has knowledge that surpasses any one of us is disingenuous.

[1213]

So you think some things in the Bible are wrong, or need interpreting?

I think Bible tells stories about people who have done wrong things. I don’t think interpretations are needed. It is enough to understand directly what the Bible tells.

...obvious falsehood that "everything went exactly as the Bible tells"...

How is it obvious falsehood?

Plants appearing before the Sun. A worldwide flood. PI equals 3....

How can it be known that sun was before plants? What evidence do we have for that?

A world wide flood, all evidence (for example continents, Grand Canyon, oil fields, orogenic mountains) indicates that it has happened, in my opinion.

Bible doesn’t say “Pi equals 3�.

[1213]

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

It is not just about telling what is wrong, but about helping to understand why something is wrong and that I meant with, helps me to understand. For example Bible shows why murder is wrong, not just that it is wrong.

[bluethread]

To state that your "personal knowledge surpasses" that of Zzyzx is totally misleading. While it may be true that you have personal knowledge of things which Zzyzx, or I, or anyone else does not have, the same could be said of any four year old child. But to claim that the four year old child has knowledge that surpasses any one of us is disingenuous.

No it is not, in the context of my post. I truly believe the four year old child's knowledge surpasses mine in many ways, ie. detail of it's personal life and community. The point being the child's knowledge does not justify the child rejecting my views. In fact, your analogy is an even better fit. It is common in modern society to reject the wisdom of the ages, because we "4 year olds" believe we know so much that we can just reject anything that was said in ancient times. This fails to recognize that any knowledge we have is built on the foundation of ancient knowledge. It is no more wise to reject knowledge just because it is old than it is to accept it just because it is old.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

To state that your "personal knowledge surpasses" that of Zzyzx is totally misleading. While it may be true that you have personal knowledge of things which Zzyzx, or I, or anyone else does not have, the same could be said of any four year old child. But to claim that the four year old child has knowledge that surpasses any one of us is disingenuous.

No it is not, in the context of my post. I truly believe the four year old child's knowledge surpasses mine in many ways, ie. detail of it's personal life and community. The point being the child's knowledge does not justify the child rejecting my views. In fact, your analogy is an even better fit. It is common in modern society to reject the wisdom of the ages, because we "4 year olds" believe we know so much that we can just reject anything that was said in ancient times. This fails to recognize that any knowledge we have is built on the foundation of ancient knowledge. It is no more wise to reject knowledge just because it is old than it is to accept it just because it is old.

A four year old child's knowledge does not "surpass" yours. A four year old child simply has had experiences that you have no knowledge of.

[bluethread]

To state that your "personal knowledge surpasses" that of Zzyzx is totally misleading. While it may be true that you have personal knowledge of things which Zzyzx, or I, or anyone else does not have, the same could be said of any four year old child. But to claim that the four year old child has knowledge that surpasses any one of us is disingenuous.

No it is not, in the context of my post. I truly believe the four year old child's knowledge surpasses mine in many ways, ie. detail of it's personal life and community. The point being the child's knowledge does not justify the child rejecting my views. In fact, your analogy is an even better fit. It is common in modern society to reject the wisdom of the ages, because we "4 year olds" believe we know so much that we can just reject anything that was said in ancient times. This fails to recognize that any knowledge we have is built on the foundation of ancient knowledge. It is no more wise to reject knowledge just because it is old than it is to accept it just because it is old.

A four year old child's knowledge does not "surpass" yours. A four year old child simply has had experiences that you have no knowledge of.

[bluethread]

To state that your "personal knowledge surpasses" that of Zzyzx is totally misleading. While it may be true that you have personal knowledge of things which Zzyzx, or I, or anyone else does not have, the same could be said of any four year old child. But to claim that the four year old child has knowledge that surpasses any one of us is disingenuous.

No it is not, in the context of my post. I truly believe the four year old child's knowledge surpasses mine in many ways, ie. detail of it's personal life and community. The point being the child's knowledge does not justify the child rejecting my views. In fact, your analogy is an even better fit. It is common in modern society to reject the wisdom of the ages, because we "4 year olds" believe we know so much that we can just reject anything that was said in ancient times. This fails to recognize that any knowledge we have is built on the foundation of ancient knowledge. It is no more wise to reject knowledge just because it is old than it is to accept it just because it is old.

A four year old child's knowledge does not "surpass" yours. A four year old child simply has had experiences that you have no knowledge of.

Again, context, context, context, the four year old child's knowledge surpasses mine in many ways, ie. detail of it's personal life and community. His knowledge of his personal life and community surpasses my knowledge of his personal life and community. I have no knowledge, he has some knowledge. Some knowledge surpasses no knowledge. If we are going to play nit pick, how do you know that my total knowledge does not surpass the knowledge of Z and you combined? You don't. This is ridiculous, of course I am not making such a claim. Your desire to be offended appears to have overpowered your ability to focus on the issue being discussed.

[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?

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.?

My question is quite specific. “Accounts� includes what was written 2000 years ago (or antiquity in general) regardless of source.

We have no way to confirm the truth and accuracy of those ancient accounts.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts?

And 2) we have only the degree of certitude that HISTORY as a science yields...?

The “degree of certitude� by historians and scholars regarding ancient events is typically far from “certainty�. Non-historians (amateurs / in-the-pew-Christians) are often FAR more certain than are scholars.

And 3) What are these life decisions you indicate?

Reliance upon ancient texts can influence (or limit) choices in regards:

Mate selection
Reproductive matters
Education
Careers
Time utilization
Recreation activities
Establishment of values / morals / ethics
Choice of associates

I am a Christian. How do you think your life (in the concrete, i.e. ostensibly) differs that much from my own?

My life is and has always been greatly different from anyone I have ever met. My paths / choices are understood by few and disapproved by many (and I couldn't care less). I do not follow the herd, do not seek approval, do not allow anyone to determine how I spend my time, do not seek income. I have been job-free for thirty-five years (and was a tenured university professor for a decade before that). I have explored the entire conterminous US and have lived in fifteen different states for months or years (often several locations in each).

My home is a comfortable fifth-wheel RV (now parked on owned acreage) and has been for decades. “Roots� and biological family are of no importance. Instead of wishing and dreaming or staying in comfort zone I do things and welcome change – and always have.

I have never owned a television set, never go to movies, have no interest in entertainment (including “sports�).

Pretty similar life?

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....?

Suggesting that our lives are similar other than Sunday mornings and mealtimes indicates a grossly mistaken assumption. I am extremely self-reliant and independent. The trappings of society / entertainment / social approval, etc mean nothing to me.

There are quite likely behaviors (in addition to church / religion-related) you indulge from which I will abstain.

We may have SOME limited overlap

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 86 by bluethread]

Notice that the OP specifically refers to ancient (2000 year old) accounts.

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

Is there sound reason to base life decisions on those accounts (which have not been shown to be truthful and accurate)?

Discussing knowledge levels of four-year-olds about their environment or knowledge levels of various debaters contributes nothing to the OP question.

Is there sound reason to think that ancient writers had greater knowledge of "gods" than anyone else?

[marco]

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

It is not just about telling what is wrong, but about helping to understand why something is wrong and that I meant with, helps me to understand. For example Bible shows why murder is wrong, not just that it is wrong.

That's an interesting idea. In the Bible God tells Abraham to murder his son. Yes, we know it was only a joke or a test, but telling someone to murder, even jokingly, isn't particularly nice. God killed Lot's wife and all she did was look back. It is hard to explain how curiosity deserves death. And of course we have numerous commands from God ordering the killing of various people. WITHOUT the Bible we are in no doubt that killing is bad; WITH the Bible it would seem it is good in quite a few circumstances.