I don't understand your argument. Comparisons of values across history are not flawed just because they lead to contradictory conclusions. They just run into problems when people attach an artificial level of authority to the targets of comparison in order to avoid having to justify their ideas in the present (ie the founding fathers said...), and typically that's accompanied with sloppy methodology and outdated or incomplete sources anyway. That's also true for making assumptions about ancient values and culture broadly. The sources are complicated to work with, but there's a lot you can do with "obviously biased" accounts and what a couple of guys thought of the world around them that meets a high bar for the degree of certainty relative to the sources, especially when you cross-reference with other fields. It's never final and you'll see that in the way responsible academics state their conclusions, but that's not the same as saying cultural studies and comparisons are inherently worse than other ways of organizing study of ancient history.
LK put it better than I can, but regardless: I think you're conflating value in a general sense with moral value. Of course I agree that there's value in having the best understanding possible of Biblical statements, not least in knowing what they were intended to communicate, but this does nothing to inform you about the morality or otherwise of those statements. Unless an argument is presented with the injunction, which the Bible is not famous for, you are at a complete starting point in determining that injunction's moral value. For example Plato said that it's better (for oneself) to be just than unjust. If we simply translated that statement, with perfect accuracy and understanding, we would have no reason to think it true or untrue, much less a guide for ethical life. At least, no reason supplied by Plato. As it happens Plato was good enough to leave us with an extended Socratic dialogue, giving us many reasons why we might think the statement true, and which we can critique on its own terms.
To Lizard_King : I should have made it more clear - I wasn't saying there isn't a lot we can learn from spotty sources (in fact, I tend to agree with you that we can learn a lot more from biased sources than we would think). Rather, I was drawing a comparison to the difficulties in reaching a consensus on what we might term of modern values, and highlighting how that process is complicated to an extraordinary degree when all you have to work with is the historical record. For instance, there is a substantial amount of artwork and documentation on the Imperial cult in the Roman empire. Like many other governments of antiquity, the Romans declared that their emperors were divine, and that they were taken up into heaven upon their death to rule as demi-gods. What we don't know is how this bit of Imperial propaganda played out in the general population - did anyone care? Was it considered important among the commoners, slaves, nobles, or some combination of the three? I find it similar to attributing the Romans as "pagan" - to anyone with a cursory knowledge of post-republic Roman theology, it's not immediately clear how much of this they sincerely believe and how much of they've assimilated and promptly forgot about. As a counterpoint to this, there is a good architectural record of some of the early splits in Christian doctrine - various Arianist baptistries/baptismals etc. provide a good snapshot in art form of the details of the conflicts people were arguing over. I find these sorts of sources to be, if not accurate, at least reasonably close to rough comparison/estimating you were describing, but my opinion is that they are the exception. I was going to talk about different ways of organizing history, but that's really not my field and my gut feeling is that you have a fair amount of practical experience in using this sort of comparison to interest younger people in historical debates, which has my full and enthusiastic approval. I guess I should further qualify my earlier post as "serious history for serious people"?
Except... that's kind of what "primitive" means. That they were lesser because they did not have the more evolved (and thus better) society of the modern era. Granted, everything we assume about non-current societies is a matter of faith and guesswork anyway, so it's all just a big thought-wankery circle jerk. A lot of ancient traditions simply make no sense in modern times. For example, I used to argue with my ex (who was Orthodox Jewish) that kosher laws make no sense since things like modern sanitation have been invented. The Jews of the Old Testament were a tribe of primitive morons who, if you believe the legends, couldn't even figure out which goddamn way EAST was and took forty years to get out of Egypt. I'm sorry, if you can't figure out "the sun comes up over there, let's keep walking that way" then the laws you make are about as binding as children pretending "the floor is lava!" Laws and beliefs based in nothing but ancient rumors and tradition are just plain stupid.
Yes, but that is a very ethnocentric way of looking at things (it's also very human). Using the word primitive is a way of reducing the society or the group of people into being a sub-human group. It's a way of setting one's self above another. I understand what you are getting at, I'm just saying that it can be a negatively loaded word.
I'm pretty sure Aristotle would be like: "Haha bitch, you crazy, of course your government has the right to make demands of you and if you don't like it you can drink hemlock." "Physician, you have been charged with opening an abscess in the eye of your patient with a bronze lancet, causing his blindness, how do you plead?" "Not guilty, your honor, by virtue of the fact that it was a silver lancet." "..." "..." "I was going to let you off with just having your fingers cut off, but since you're going to be a dick about it: guard, stab out his eyes as well. I, Hammurabi, have spoken."
No, they were morons. Walking east is easy and if you're using the excuse that "God confused them" - I'm sorry, God isn't that powerful. If you can't tell what direction the sun rises, you deserve centuries of slavery and oppression and to have your nation continually rocketed for shits and giggles. This is why that's the dumbest myth ever. How are you supposed to sympathize with an entire nation of morons?
This is the helium all over again. At least know what the fuck you're talking about if you want to troll historically.
They weren't lost, they were forbidden to cross the Jordan river as a punishment for not believing that they could conquer Canaan when they arrived there, and forced to march the desert until the entire generation that pussed out died off. EDIT: And yeah it didn't actually happen, at least not at the scale described. Thus making your remark twice as retarded: one because you didn't know what you were talking about and another because you were hiiiiilariously judging an entire culture on an ignorant opinion of a metaphorical piece of their myths.
I'm a loss for words as a response because that has nothing to do with our conversation. If you want to troll, put in the legwork to make sure you aren't just spouting bullshit.
Sorry, I got a bit het up. Going back to the beginning - using the word "primitive" to describe a culture that is inherently less evolved than modern culture, using the Old Testament Jews as an example. According to myth, they spent forty years "wandering the desert" because of, depending on which myth you hear, anything from "not having enough faith" to "God wouldn't let them cross into Canaan". Whereas by modern rational thought, any group of people who takes 40 years to complete what should be a two-week stroll because of superstitious reasons is primitive and atavistic, barely evolved beyond cave-scribbling Neanderthals. It's a hot-button issue for me, and tends to make me a bit less than reasonable in responses. I absolutely abhor the mindset that says "It's okay to base decisions - from the personal to the political - on religious beliefs that have no more validity than the latest Twilight novel". I consider that kind of thinking superstitious and primitive, because faith in things unseen is, to me, the sign of a primitive culture that should have died out when people stopped hunting mammoths.
That part has always baffled me. Since Israel and Judah were both WEST of the Jordan, and Egypt was also WEST of the both of them, the River Jordan prohibition doesn't seem to have have any ... point. Just curious.
Dammit Nute I love you man but FFS. Myth or not, there is a huge difference between "they weren't allowed to enter the land" and "they couldn't find it LOLOLOLOL". The former speaks to cultural beliefs and myths and so on (and don't confuse these; whether Jehovah is factual or not, the Ancient Jews' belief in Him is historical fact), the latter is like HURR HURR where is the bright burning ball of gas in the sky let's walk in a circle. Come on man.
The traditional "path" taken by the Israelites looped around through Sinai and the Negev, through "Edom" east of the Dead Sea, then (eventually) west across the Jordan. And yeah, it never happened, and no, the scriptural version is "being obliged by god to wait at an oasis for 38 years," not wandering around aimlessly. I have no issue with people finding various things in scripture ludicrous but it's a bit much objecting to the "frequently misheard lyrics" version. Unless you're actually talking to people who so misheard the lyrics, in which case, I dunno, maybe for the sake of their goofball religiousity just tell them to re-read Numbers.
Not being allowed to enter is probably just garbage doctrine fed to them by their holy men at the time, and they collectively bought into it. So they wandered a desert for a generation instead of entering into arable land. Sounds incredibly stupid to be so duped by peddlers of religion, right? Especially on such a scale. Well, snake handlers have never struck me as being the brightest bulbs in the room, and looking at a cow and believing that's a reincarnated family member? Or that when I die I'll rule over an entire planet as a god, or that the space emperor xenu dropped atom bombs on Earth from B-27ish space craft millions of years ago. . . .
It never happened - there's no evidence for an Egyptian captivity at all. So no real need to parse "what actually happened." It's just a story in which the wait (not wandering) was a punishment.
A friend just got this from his mom, posted it on Facebook: "Where have you been?? This whole regime's goal is to collapse our whole system. They say it is the only way to control our citizens. Read the Communist Manifesto. They are following it quite closely. I thought you were informed." I thought you were informed.
Well I guess I need to get a copy of the Communist Manifesto. You think it's in Google Books? ETA: Yes. Yes it is.
Somebody didn't actually read the Communist Manifesto. The argument it made was that socialism and eventually communism were the inevitable outcome of capitalism, in that eventually the proletariat would rise up and set things up that way so as to remedy their situation. Your friend's mom (among others) seems to think that the bourgeois is trying to impose socialism and/or communism, even though they have nothing to gain from such an imposition; indeed, they stand to be the losers in that equation.
It's obvious Mom subscribes to a Leninist interpretation of Obama's strategy (The Manchurian Kenyan Candidate Gambit). The complication from an orthodox Marxist perspective is an over-developed (rather than agrarian) society that has moved away from traditional labor, and a former Harvard professor is the ideal leader of a vanguard of liberals that will guide the masses [of minorities] to triumph over Americans by making welfare babies out of stolen hard work. It is known.
It's like Lenin said after interrogating the Elders of Zion, religion is the Obamacare of the masses. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
One time I had to write an essay for a history class which included, if possible, the subject's autobiography. Project Gutenberg saved me having to explain to a librarian or store clerk why I was trying to track down a copy of Mein Kampf. Also, it's fucking hilarious how much of a compulsive liar he is.
It's pretty nifty how complete the hatchet job on Marx has been. He was a pretty smart dude and The Communist Manifesto actually does make a lot of good points, but because he was ultimately wrong about the "inevitable" post-capitalist system and because some dingleberries tried to force said system into being despite that fact, anything even approaching his quite accurate descriptions of the problems with capitalism is evil by association, and The Communist Manifesto itself is so toxic that even on a relatively lefty forum like this one a mention of it calls to mind Mein Kampf for at least one poster. Great job, conservatives! Also back in the fifties my grandfather was questioned by the FBI because he checked The Communist Manifesto out of the library to see what all the fuss was about.
Actually, it was the part where they found it on Google Books. Mein Kampf is just the least likely book ever to be found anywhere because it's illegal in a number of places, and not published in many others because it tends to get you boycotted. Whereas if I want to reread some of The Communist Manifesto it's behind me and to my left in the same text as The State and the Revolution and The Soviet Constitution of 1936. Nor am I in the USA. In fact, where I live has had an NDP MPP since 1987.
Very well, ignore that part and keep the rest then. Is it? I tried to look into this and all I found was that it's effectively illegal in China and Argentina and quasi-legal in Germany. Are there others? I assume this stands for National Doughnut Patrol, Ministry of Pastry Police? You have my sympathy.
Just what we need: the Nanny State foisting inferior maple bars and jelly-filleds on us while the delicate awesomeness of light crullers and the simple joy of chocolate old-fashioneds are held only for the oligarchs and the 1%. FREE ROCKNOR
Nope, looks like you're right. I'm probably conflating post-war banning with current status. Socialists. Within striking distance of the Canada - US border. No word on whether Franken is a fifth columnist, be ever watchful. It gets fucking surreal explaining local politics to dudes from Wisconsin or western Minnesota who have a summer home up here.
Ontario calls their members-of-the-Legislative-Assembly (MLAs) members-of-provincial-parliament (MPPs) because of Canada's ancient constitutional requirement that Upper Canadians be pompous and full of themselves. The New Democratic Party (NDP) calls itself that because it's 51 years old. (80 if you count its direct predecessor party.)
My cousin, on Facebook: "This whole generation is the fruit of a Godless, secular humanist indoctrination from Kindergarten through Grad School. The sanctity of life has been almost completely devalued in this country by 40 years of wholesale abortion, brought to you by the same Liberal army that now can't understand how one could kill a child, and yet they still blame it on guns. A sick society does sick things. High time to reevaluate what the SOURCE of these horrors are... and it is NOT GUN" What's strange is that he's younger than me. Fairly smart kid, typical upbringing; his family is moderate to slightly liberal. He's totally wrapped up in the Fox News bubble. It's sad. At least he knows not to talk about this shit at family gatherings.
I think Nute's new point is that suffering in the desert for 40 years because you believe a big scary invisible sky man wants you to is not smart. Like if you thought you couldn't walk out your front door because it would make God angry. I'd call you stupid too.
No, his point was that those idiots couldn't figure out what direction to walk in. He said it plainly more than once.
