A thread for religious discussion, without shitposting.
To start off, I would like to advance a theory on the shift between the Old Testament and New as a shift from a primarily oral tradition to a more literary one. Using Ong's work Orality and Literacy, I think this explains perceived inconsistencies between the characterization of God in the books. I will be drawing from his third chapter, "Some Pschodynamics of Orality".
Without delving into the matter more thoroughly, Ong illustrates the additive feature of oral epic forms by using the example of Genesis. Indeed, the Old Testament I would argue is an oral work, composed from stories passed down throughout the years,
Oral based epics are agonsitic - focused on struggle and violence, using these concepts to form community identities. I believe this is the reason the Old Testament is much more violent, and the struggle of the Israelites against the Philistines is a prime example of this. Their own community is forged by these recounted conflicts. This also explains the rather violent actions of God throughout the books.
The New Testament, however, was developed in an era in which writing forms and literacy were much more internalized. While violence is still prevalent, it is now often used to juxtapose with the peaceful actions of the protagonists.
>>1834317
If the books of the OT were an oral tradition wouldn't they be epic poems like the Iliad or Gilgamesh? Correct me if they are actually very similar to epic poems. I'm sure they incorporated oral traditions but I get the impression that the books of the OT, especially Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were originally literary works
>>1834334
I think they were an oral form partially distinct from epic, in which law codes, history, and restrictions were also carried down. My academic focus is normally on Asian religious traditions, so I'm not too well versed on the Old Testament. This idea was something I thought of after reading Ong's book.
The mannerisms in the text (It's additive nature, agonsiticsm, situational, and slight redundancies) correspond with ways oral performance operates, which led me to my perhaps over-generalization that the OT was a purely oral composition. It's quite possible that portions of it were purely literate, and others dictated.
I am mainly trying to reconcile the differences between the OT and NT, which many I've noticed view as hypocritical. I'd say the OT was for a largely literate audience with which its content resounds, whereas the New Testament was composed in an era where literacy was more prevalent and internalized and its content reflects this with a higher level of abstraction and less emphasis on violence.
>>1834317
Sounds like you have a ready-made theory to selectively fit the facts into.
You have talent for academia.
What would be the possible benefit or downside to selective breeding in this day and age?
selective breeding is 20th century bs
genetic engineering though might work, we just have to sort out a few pieces of knowledge
>>1834290
Selective breeding is something that happens naturally already. We just need to let it happen.
>>1834290
Rather than play the genetic russian roulette, remove genes that cause bad things in humans. Genetic engineering is vastly superior to eugenics.
Which invention finally brought the end of plate armor's usefulness on the battlefield?
>>1834259
The rifled carbine
>>1834271
Agreed. I'd go further, and say the mass production of said rifle super sealed the deal.
Mass producing plate armor vs. mass producing rifles is some pretty easy math in anyone's army.
>>1834259
>le man who is always right about everything
Well, I mean we really didn't know much about Plato. We mostly just knew about Socrates. But regardless, did you ever read The Republic? That's a horrible idea for a nation.
>>1834454
>That's a horrible idea for a nation.
What? Why would it be retarded to have a king who is literally right about everything?
>>1834460
Didn't Plato literally run a city state once and it ended terribly for everyone involved?
Find a flaw.
Good goy
>>1834145
He didn't pull the whole "Give Bavaria to Austria" thing through
Pretty sure you can blame the Allies losing Norway ((An important sub marine base for the Germans and good possible bombing station for the Brits))
Why wasn't Germany affected by ""The Great Depression"""?
Open a fucking history book for once
>>1834161
>I hate discussing about History
>>1834169
>states a blatant lie as fact
>why doesn't anyone want to le discuss history with me :(((((
Philosophy before the linguistic turn:
>God, virtue, nihilism, life, nature, metaphysics, wisdom, beauty, knowledge
Philosophy after:
>muh definite descriptions, muh the king of France is bald, muh sense and reference, muh private language, muh p entails q, muh how do we know the meaning of a sentence, muh language muh language muh language
Jesus fucking Christ what the fuck happened?
Easiest way to win an argument.
>muh language games
>muh feels over reals
They became sentient
Why did Germany recover so quickly after WW1 while France became permanently crippled?
>>1834039
They didn't. Germany was stronger vis a vis her three main European adversaries (Britian which includes her colonies, France, and Russia/USSR) in WW1 than she was in WW2.
>>1834039
jesus christ bulgaria mobilized a million people
>>1834039
By being niggers and not paying their debts.
David was an aim hacker
Prove me wrong
>>1833956
If this battle happened in the 12th century, Goliath would have had a full helm plate rendering the sling useless.
>>1833956
The David and Goliath story belongs in the realm of fiction because Goliath was a mythical half-god, half-man beast like out of greek mythology.
Prove me wrong.
>>1833976
If the battle happened in the 12th century, David would have had a crossbow rendering the full plate helm useless.
Like, you just climb the right mountain or build a tower high enough and you have reached heaven?
Or was heaven always seen as a place in another dimension or something? And if not, at what point did the idea shift?
Likewise, God. Was he seen as a physical guy. A beard and everything?
Well, the greatest being humans knew were humans, so of course "God modeled us on himself"
>>1833941
Yeah but, was he physically there?
Like, would he be sleeping in a bed in his palace in heaven. Eating breakfast at his table. Sitting on his couch watching humans.
Does God poop?
I hope heaven is like the way it's depicted in American Dad desu
Macaulay:
"Up to the age of twelve formal learning should be made pleasant and involve writing, arithmetic, Latin grammar, geography, French learnt by the simple method of hiring some French domestic servants, and as much physics as can be easily understood by children.
As children mature, Macaulay recommends a more formidable curriculum. Among her recommended reading there is Plutarch’s Lives, Rollin’s Ancient History in French, and Livy, works which were surely early influences on her own thought. She puts off learning Greek until fifteen, and moral philosophy in the form of works by Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca and Epictetus until sixteen, but expects her pupils, by the age of eighteen to be reading Plato, Demosthenes, Sophocles, Euripides and Homer in Greek, as well as Caesar and Cicero in Latin. Among modern philosophical texts she recommends two by James Harris, his Philosophical Arrangements and Hermes an inquiry into universal grammar, Lord Monboddo on language and Epea pteroenta by John Horne Tooke, her and her brother’s friend. Political philosophy in the form of the works of James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, Locke and Hobbes is left until the age of nineteen."
And today parents and teachers are proud to say, that their kids can speak one, in some cases two languages well somehow, beside their mother tongue. some trashies even have probleme with their own language.
What went wrong or do I miss something important??
>>1833876
My guess is that with mass education there is no way to teach everyone to be second Newton.
>>1833876
Egalitarianism. There's not much more to it.
>>1833876
How many languages are you fluent in, op?
1. The Government Lies (Remember the Dress incident? With the gooey stuff?)
It's well known that the government lies, murders and steals in order to keep in control of the population. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that JFK's head did not explode backwards caused by a bullet coming from the book depository. So if the government would murder the president and cover it up... why wouldn't they lie about other stuff?
2. NASA has been caught manipulating images and evidence before
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000
http://www.news.com.au/technology/conspiracy-theorists-confident-photoshopped-nasa-image-is-a-cover-up/story-e6frfro0-1225936084529
Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that NASA is full of inconsistencies, lies and coverups. The moon landings look incredibly fake not to mention John Glenn's alleged orbit around the earth in 1962. This guy supposedly shot off the top of a rocket going 17,500 mph, did a mid-air 180 degree turn and successfully orbited the earth 3 and a half times in under 5 hours
Can anyone say "BULLSHITTTT" ?
3. You COULD see the Curvature with your naked eyes if the earth was a Sphere
It's a common misconception that the earth is simply too big to notice any curvature below (insert figure here). This is simply not true. Using the dimensions of the earth provided by NASA, there would be an 8 inch downward curve after the first mile, 32 inches after the second and 6 feet after the 3rd mile. After 20 miles the ground should curve 266 feet downwards.
Go to a place where the horizon is visible from on top of a hill or building and you can easily see for 5-10+ miles with your naked eye. You will notice that the horizon is perfectly flat and there is not any curvature to be seen.
THEY HAVE BEEN LYING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEAR THROUGH HISTORY!
It's people like you that make my work so much easier.
Have a bump, friend.
>>1833751
Tell me something anon, when you watch a ship sail off into the horizon why does the hull disappear first, then the sails? If the Earth were flat shouldn't it all disappear from view at the same time.
Dresden wasn't a war crime.
Indeed it wasn't, ol'chap.
Next thread.
dresden was a crime in that it wasn't bombed enough.
>>1833762
I like you
Was there any army or general which treated his soldiers as meat shields?
Our pashas with the albanians.
>>1833683
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>1833698
copypastas and memeposting are rule violations, its ironic that you're going to be the one banned and not a single trip poster, frankly because no one cares about trips
reported and hidden
How did Dawkins was able to coin concept of the memes, arguably the most used idea of our time, but professional modern philosophers failed to do their direct job and come up with something new, equally important, easy to understand, but pretty deep idea that really could impact people minds?
>get shitfaced at the lab one night
>scribbling in your notebook
>try to write "genes" but youre helen keller level drunk and it goes horribly wrong
>months pass
>deadline for new book is coming up
>tfw you blew the advance as soon as you got it and forgot to write anything
> smash together some notes, mail them off to your publisher, and call it a day
>a couple months go by
>your book comes out
>a new meme is born
>
Memes are lazy and don't encourage original thought. It is like that kid at school who would steal your jokes but say them louder.
>>1833738
Memes in Dawkins' sense are to culture what genes are to biology. Every idea is a meme, and how successful they are depends on how often they're replicated/repeated. The words and letters I used to type this are successful memes. My opposable thumbs are the manifestation of successful genes.