This debate appears to me, in my simplistic and naive way, to be about the search for truth. I found an interesting article in the Washington Post that relates, somewhat, to the exchange between Aslan and Oliver. It tends towards the middle ground.

I hope it is of interest to others:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802040.html

I believe it is relevant to this topic as it too concerns belief and interpretation. It also illustrates the need to learn from history and to revise our world view as knowledge increases.

Ringy, I read your link, and found it quite good, but I find one glaring problem with the whole concept of using History as our launching pad for morality. Firtly, the foundation on which the Nation of the USA is built, and from which the professor speaks, is one of unbridled greed and rampaging opportunism which saw the slaughter of untold indigenous people, and now, they can relax in their peaceful Spring Afternoons in their nice rocking chairs on the verandahs of their glorious dwellings and colleges all built on stolen land, and 'contemplate the moral value of history'.

This also reveals why some people are so passionate about Revelation being a far superior source of morality. The scriptures equally condemn the idolatry of the first nations, and the greed of the more powerful European settlers. All people and nations are called in scripture to live under God, and to live with their neighbours best interests at heart. Had this been followed the world would not be in the shape it is now (demographically). All the wars to come, have their seeds in the corrupt and vile practice of our forbears.

People dont forget, when the Normans invaded now Saxon England, their left flank consisted of an army of CELTS who had been exiled from England to Brittainy. This was 2 generations removed from those exiled.

I read your link, I offer one for anyone interested a link which might prove edifying.

Tony Campolo,

http://www.tonycampolo.org/messages.shtml
message "Living in the Nth Degree" (real audio)

THANKS

Xena and Jane, thank you for your support. Anyone who will put up with my poor typing and wayward fingers is a friend.

LANGUAGE

Aslan and Kenny,

I believe you will find that, “Tischreden”, refers to an after dinner speech, not idle chitchat, Aslan. Herein, Kenny is not reporting “off the cuff” remarks. Moreover, I would think, a scholar like Luther would have presented a formal, considered lecture(s). Of course, I don’t know. But, Kenny’s account seems to make the most sense by a mile.

Aslan,

Why I mentioned that Moses “might” have spoken an Egyptian tongue was that (a) Moses is an Egyptian name and (b) many Habiru remained in Egypt after for c. 350 years after the expulsion of their clanspersons by Ahmose I in 1567 BCE. The people, who were not expelled, were mercenary soldiers and trades folk (Quigley 1961). So, there was plenty cross-societal intermingling going-on up-until c. 1300 BCE.

The link between Moses and the Habiru seems to be a subordinate Canaanite tribal God called, “Yahveh”. This minor God of the Canaanite Baal was the God who supposedly protected murders and the “landless and kin-shattered”. Moses was a murderer and the Hebrew Habiru were poor and lineage challenged. A match made in heaven and a God made on Earth!

“Daman” (1826) in Hebrew also means, “to stop” and “be still”. “Amad” (5975) … the root means to stand, and, also stand still and stand firm. Chetsiy (2677) means middle and can also mean “mid-“, as in midnight. Moreover, Strong is not a general Hebrew translation text, but a companion translation text to the Bible (King James Version?).

Aslan,

More later. Busy now.

Boaz,

Thank you for your response. I knew a guy, a theologian, who thought the Bible’s recording of exaggerated speech, as used by Jesus, was a form of humour known to the people of the time. (Like MAD Magazine) Yes, the use of language needs be seen in its context.

He started to study Comparative Religions for his Masters thesis, he subsequently became a doubter, based on the historical records, he encountered.

You know Boaz, I’ve done a lot of dumb things in my life, made many mistakes and I’d like to think I have learnt from them. I am certainly a more giving tolerant person than the callow 20 year old I used to be. My point is; I didn’t need the bible to get there. I have a conscience – it works very well, too well sometimes.

I checked out your link, was not surprised to find that it was a full on Christian site, rather than anything I could relate to. You see, I have problems with phrases like “surrendering to Christ” or “turning you love life over to god”. Also it promotes values that I already hold such as “service to others can bring personal fulfilment and engender joy” as if Christians hold the monopoly on such values. You don’t.

I also had problems with “materialistic values of our secular society” excuuuse me, but I know plenty of religious people who own far more material goods than do I. Yet once again the implication is that to believe in a Christian god is to be some how morally superior to every one else.

I don’t disagree with your view of the USA, however the average American is more likely to believe in god than the average Aussie. Besides that is not a good enough reason to dismiss learning from history.

Cheers

Good on you Ringtail, appreciate that you actually had a listen.
Christians may or may not at times be morally 'superior' to non Christians, just as they might at times be morally inferior, if we just look at behavior. We all it 'walking in the Spirit', we are not immune to misbehavior, mistakes, SINS, our degree of 'moral' attainment, depends at any give time on our daily walk with Christ, and how much we allow His still small voice to go from the head to the heart.

CONSCIENCE. quite right, you have one, and I'm sure by and large are guided by it. I only suggest that it is a 'socialized' concience :) i.e. one which has inherited the overall value system in which you were brought up. Personally, I try to go deeper than my upbringing.

MATERIALISTIC SECULAR SOCIETY. Yes, point taken, many Christians have done very well thankyouverymuch, they call it 'redemption and lift' where your life turns around, no more pokies, booze, smokes and voila, suddenly u have a 30% pay rise :) which translates into a more abundant lifestyle. But sadly, some who attain higher material well being, quickly forget He who gave all for us, and just enjoy the fruit of their labor in a selfish way.

But I learned long ago, never to use weak or failing Christians as an excuse to either be so myself or deny the reality of life in Christ.

All your points have validity, they just need more than 350 words of discussion to explore satisfactorily.

Aslan,

With all heinous crimes – i.e., all sickening examples – all the jury can do is listen to the evidence, deliberate and deliver a considered verdict. It is a fallible system. However, it is the Court’s role to present as much evidence as possible to aid in that deliberation. So, if we were look at the case for the existence of God we weigh-up all the evidence. Sometimes, we have a hung jury. A judge might advise the jury reconsider the evidence.

The Qin (Ch’in) dynasty was the first unification period.

Histograpgically the Sinic Civilisation (2000 BCE – 400 CE) gave rise to Ancient China and Ancient Japan. In the approximate geophysical area of we now call China, there were three feudal periods, predating the Qin dynasty, namely; going back in time, the Chan Kuo period, the Ch’un Ch’iu period, and, the Early Chou period. This takes us back to about 1,030 BCE. The preceding Shang Kingdom was contemporary to the time of Joshua. Herein, within this period, recordings of astronomical events appear on oracle stones. The author of your source should visit the Nanjing Museum, which shows Chinese (word used in the modern sense) astronomy goes back 5,000 years.

“The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.” The sentences do have meaning, as those sentences demonstrate the existence of paradox. “Black is white. White is black.” Those last two sentences do not demonstrate paradox. Just ask Mr Black from Norway and Mr White from Nigeria.

Any further debate on Galileo or Luther? I’m with Kenny on the latter.

Why I like Abelard, the Christian, is that he doubted. He may have remained a Christian, but he did do so, after questioning the fallibility of Holy Writ. Given his time, the lack of science and conditioning, it was an honest choice, after deliberation. I wonder if Thomas was his favourite saint? :-)

Boaz,

I am just trying to coax you guys to take in a bigger picture. Re-evaluate the evidence.