RE: Ash Wednesday
March 11, 2009 at 6:55 pm
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2009 at 6:56 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
@chatpilot.
I obviously did not make a wrong guess.
Buying "a few books" on history dos not equate to having read a lot of history. A few books on the same period is usually considered a good start.
If you've read only "The Golden Bough" you've read virtually no anthropology.
I was reading Aquinas at 16,and also have little respect for theology. I don't consider it real philosophy because it's presuppositional. This view is not the consensus amongst philosophers.
"False history" is correct I think from several perspectives:
There is no such thing as ancient history in the sense we use the word. All ancient records of people and events are false to some degree.BUT so are most modern historical accounts,it's a matter of degree,from extreme to petty. History deals in probabilities when discussing the "how" and the "why". Ancient sources tend to be also problematic about the "what"
The church uses false history in several ways: By presenting [carefully chosen*] myth as fact,by suppressing dissenting views and by deliberate falsification.
*EG The books of the Catholic Canon canon used today were largely the choices of one man,Athanasius of Alexandria ,and ratified by the First Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Many more books,collectively called "apochrypha" were omitted .
Accusing me of being brain washed because my opinion differs from yours is a ad hominem attack. My tit for tat response is that your posts use the kind of argument from ignorance common amongst autodidacts..
That's all I have to say.
I obviously did not make a wrong guess.
Buying "a few books" on history dos not equate to having read a lot of history. A few books on the same period is usually considered a good start.
If you've read only "The Golden Bough" you've read virtually no anthropology.
I was reading Aquinas at 16,and also have little respect for theology. I don't consider it real philosophy because it's presuppositional. This view is not the consensus amongst philosophers.
"False history" is correct I think from several perspectives:
There is no such thing as ancient history in the sense we use the word. All ancient records of people and events are false to some degree.BUT so are most modern historical accounts,it's a matter of degree,from extreme to petty. History deals in probabilities when discussing the "how" and the "why". Ancient sources tend to be also problematic about the "what"
The church uses false history in several ways: By presenting [carefully chosen*] myth as fact,by suppressing dissenting views and by deliberate falsification.
*EG The books of the Catholic Canon canon used today were largely the choices of one man,Athanasius of Alexandria ,and ratified by the First Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Many more books,collectively called "apochrypha" were omitted .
Accusing me of being brain washed because my opinion differs from yours is a ad hominem attack. My tit for tat response is that your posts use the kind of argument from ignorance common amongst autodidacts..
That's all I have to say.
