RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
April 5, 2013 at 3:11 am
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 3:39 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Contradictions aren't really all that impressive to me, nor is consistency. I'm fond of reminding people that you won;t find many contradictions within the pages of Bram Stokers Dracula, or between printings of it either. In fact, wide disparity between narratives that purport to be accounts of the same thing would be very surprising to me - especially considering the value these accounts would go on to have. Consistency in a narrative is the hallmark of good stroytelling, and of good editing, but not necessarily the hallmark of accuracy in content (but feel free to hang some garlic over your windows and doors tonight - if it worries or convinces you).
In sourcing that bit (and it's author) the thing that strikes me firstly is that it was written in 1944. Our knowledge of the time period presumably in question is perhaps a tad better developed, today, than it was at the time of writing. The authors notions of how well the narrative had been authenticated is a reflection of 1944 - at the very least. Hammurabi, David, Socrates - if there -weren't- an element of legend to these people it would surprise the hell out of me. The notion of them "fading to legend" is, I suppose, a little amusing to me in that regard - because they're already there. Hammurabi is fairly well fleshed out - plenty of tablets with his name on them, even what we are willing to propose as his own letters. The archaeological record can bear out the contents thereof and corroborate the data without requiring the testimony of any persons or foundational myth. Still plenty of room for legend - and certainly there are legendary tales to be told about Hammurabi. Seeing David even included here very plainly shows the disadvantage this authors position in time conferred. David, in stark contrast to Hammurabi, has a grand total of two (2) pieces of what might be corroborating evidence...and the archaeological record tells a tale so different than the one recounted in the OT that it's difficult to conceive of a David that is anything less than legend, and probably approaching a great deal more (myth). Socrates, well, IIRC there are more words attributed to him in plays (that we don't accept as historically accurate depictions of the man) than anywhere else. Nevertheless, the evidence for a historical socrates isn't what I would call knockdown by any stretch-with many folks simply accepting that there was some socrates..accepting that what we know of socrates may not, strictly speaking, be true of whoever the man was. Again, some elements of legend in the most sympathetic of readings. If we wanted to invoke these three characters though, I'd say that jesus has a lot less in common with Hammurabi than he does with either David or Socrates.
Whew, that was alot for what is essentially just a preamble, a few lines....but onward and upward....what I see next is a hasty reference to "embarrassing details". I suppose I can only ask whether or not the embarrassing details in mormon scriptures are convincing to you, or the embarrassing details in norse epic? Do these things, for you, help to establish the veracity of Mormonism or Asatru? Even so, some of these "embarrassing details" are very plainly narrative devices. They serve to keep the plot moving forward-or to present the protagonist with an opportunity to do his thing, some even appear to be very clever ways of humanizing the character of christ or endearing him to us (which is important, since we need to care about this character).
Next up is the contention that the story of jesus was invented by a few simple men in one generation. I don't know what would compell the author to state this as a position of others (except, perhaps, that maybe this was the position of someone in his experience. I'm of the opinion that the christ narrative took a bit more than a single generation to put together (in fact -that it's still being put together today- as a narrative). As to whether or not the character described is a powerful or appealing personality...I suppose that would be a matter of opinion. I don't share the authors opinion. I don't think that the ethics described are so lofty (after all, we have a reaffirmation of thought crime and the introduction of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice/deicide - just to point out two examples), and I definitely don't think that the narrative presents me with any inspiring vision of brotherhood. I don;t think that the construction of any character at any time (within any time-frame) by anyone is in any way more miraculous than the notion of the dead rising from their graves (and I suspect that this statement has at least a touch of hyperbole to it).
If literary criticism were the only tool we had to go on to judge the contents of our past I'm afraid that we would have a much less complete picture of that past before us today. In fact, I think we;d have a picture of the past that is more like the picture offered in 1944..rather than 2013. Laying that aside, I would hope that the trouble undertaken to construct this jesus would give at least a competent account of whomever the narrators wanted to portray jesus as- otherwise they failed as storytellers. Whether this particular story is the most fascinating feature of the history of western man...I don't think that was true even in 1944(and I have a busy 69 years more history to consider) - but the authors opinion is free to differ from mine.
Now, I want to clarify something here. Durant (in his other works, and even on the subject of christ) was pretty reliable with regards to removing magic from the equation. So, claiming that he "believed in the gospels" is a tad disingenuous. But whether or nt Durant was willing to propose that there was some jesus - the man and whether he had any evidence for jesus the-man would be an entirely different proposition. If he possessed any evidence that we do not possess now he never made any mention of it, and we certainly don't have any now either. Jesus Christ, the miracle working son of a god is an entirely different proposition, and having no evidence for a jesus-the man...you can imagine where jesus-the god finds itself.
So, having gone through all of this...I have to ask you why you felt that this excerpt (or my opinions of it) or the beliefs of Durant (or anyone really) would have to do with the post you quoted? Was this meant to be a logical argument for the existence of a god? An argument for the rationality of belief in the christian god? Because if that's the case...that would be an entirely different (and much shorter) post. I will say that either way (or if it was something else entirely) it's a good example of the part of the quoted post that I mentioned that logic was only as good as what you plug into it. I have higher standards of evidence than Durant, and this is likely due in no small part to having access to better sources of information, more advanced tools and methods for exploring history - this is just a consequence of -my- position in time. That being said....if I was going to try to tease an argument out of that exerpt - it's difficult to miss the argument from incredulity. It would seem that Durant simply couldn't imagine how the character might be invented. Those assumptions about how many generations it took, how many men were involved, the overall historicity of the account (and also that of others..David particularly) might have lead to that unfortunate conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.
In sourcing that bit (and it's author) the thing that strikes me firstly is that it was written in 1944. Our knowledge of the time period presumably in question is perhaps a tad better developed, today, than it was at the time of writing. The authors notions of how well the narrative had been authenticated is a reflection of 1944 - at the very least. Hammurabi, David, Socrates - if there -weren't- an element of legend to these people it would surprise the hell out of me. The notion of them "fading to legend" is, I suppose, a little amusing to me in that regard - because they're already there. Hammurabi is fairly well fleshed out - plenty of tablets with his name on them, even what we are willing to propose as his own letters. The archaeological record can bear out the contents thereof and corroborate the data without requiring the testimony of any persons or foundational myth. Still plenty of room for legend - and certainly there are legendary tales to be told about Hammurabi. Seeing David even included here very plainly shows the disadvantage this authors position in time conferred. David, in stark contrast to Hammurabi, has a grand total of two (2) pieces of what might be corroborating evidence...and the archaeological record tells a tale so different than the one recounted in the OT that it's difficult to conceive of a David that is anything less than legend, and probably approaching a great deal more (myth). Socrates, well, IIRC there are more words attributed to him in plays (that we don't accept as historically accurate depictions of the man) than anywhere else. Nevertheless, the evidence for a historical socrates isn't what I would call knockdown by any stretch-with many folks simply accepting that there was some socrates..accepting that what we know of socrates may not, strictly speaking, be true of whoever the man was. Again, some elements of legend in the most sympathetic of readings. If we wanted to invoke these three characters though, I'd say that jesus has a lot less in common with Hammurabi than he does with either David or Socrates.
Whew, that was alot for what is essentially just a preamble, a few lines....but onward and upward....what I see next is a hasty reference to "embarrassing details". I suppose I can only ask whether or not the embarrassing details in mormon scriptures are convincing to you, or the embarrassing details in norse epic? Do these things, for you, help to establish the veracity of Mormonism or Asatru? Even so, some of these "embarrassing details" are very plainly narrative devices. They serve to keep the plot moving forward-or to present the protagonist with an opportunity to do his thing, some even appear to be very clever ways of humanizing the character of christ or endearing him to us (which is important, since we need to care about this character).
Next up is the contention that the story of jesus was invented by a few simple men in one generation. I don't know what would compell the author to state this as a position of others (except, perhaps, that maybe this was the position of someone in his experience. I'm of the opinion that the christ narrative took a bit more than a single generation to put together (in fact -that it's still being put together today- as a narrative). As to whether or not the character described is a powerful or appealing personality...I suppose that would be a matter of opinion. I don't share the authors opinion. I don't think that the ethics described are so lofty (after all, we have a reaffirmation of thought crime and the introduction of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice/deicide - just to point out two examples), and I definitely don't think that the narrative presents me with any inspiring vision of brotherhood. I don;t think that the construction of any character at any time (within any time-frame) by anyone is in any way more miraculous than the notion of the dead rising from their graves (and I suspect that this statement has at least a touch of hyperbole to it).
If literary criticism were the only tool we had to go on to judge the contents of our past I'm afraid that we would have a much less complete picture of that past before us today. In fact, I think we;d have a picture of the past that is more like the picture offered in 1944..rather than 2013. Laying that aside, I would hope that the trouble undertaken to construct this jesus would give at least a competent account of whomever the narrators wanted to portray jesus as- otherwise they failed as storytellers. Whether this particular story is the most fascinating feature of the history of western man...I don't think that was true even in 1944(and I have a busy 69 years more history to consider) - but the authors opinion is free to differ from mine.
Now, I want to clarify something here. Durant (in his other works, and even on the subject of christ) was pretty reliable with regards to removing magic from the equation. So, claiming that he "believed in the gospels" is a tad disingenuous. But whether or nt Durant was willing to propose that there was some jesus - the man and whether he had any evidence for jesus the-man would be an entirely different proposition. If he possessed any evidence that we do not possess now he never made any mention of it, and we certainly don't have any now either. Jesus Christ, the miracle working son of a god is an entirely different proposition, and having no evidence for a jesus-the man...you can imagine where jesus-the god finds itself.
So, having gone through all of this...I have to ask you why you felt that this excerpt (or my opinions of it) or the beliefs of Durant (or anyone really) would have to do with the post you quoted? Was this meant to be a logical argument for the existence of a god? An argument for the rationality of belief in the christian god? Because if that's the case...that would be an entirely different (and much shorter) post. I will say that either way (or if it was something else entirely) it's a good example of the part of the quoted post that I mentioned that logic was only as good as what you plug into it. I have higher standards of evidence than Durant, and this is likely due in no small part to having access to better sources of information, more advanced tools and methods for exploring history - this is just a consequence of -my- position in time. That being said....if I was going to try to tease an argument out of that exerpt - it's difficult to miss the argument from incredulity. It would seem that Durant simply couldn't imagine how the character might be invented. Those assumptions about how many generations it took, how many men were involved, the overall historicity of the account (and also that of others..David particularly) might have lead to that unfortunate conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
