Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Lower Nubia]

Memory wasn't magically accurate in the past, however. Nor were the retelling of stories in oral traditions immune from slight variations cropping up over time.

You're not giving it the credit it deserves, because your experience of memory is of today, not then.

[Albrenia]

Memory wasn't magically accurate in the past, however. Nor were the retelling of stories in oral traditions immune from slight variations cropping up over time.

You're not giving it the credit it deserves, because your experience of memory is of today, not then.

Unless our brains have devolved in the past few hundreds years, you're giving it too much credit.

[Lower Nubia]

You're not giving it the credit it deserves, because your experience of memory is of today, not then.

Unless our brains have devolved in the past few hundreds years, you're giving it too much credit.

No, our brains have not changed. It's how society emphasises information that has changed.

(It took 3 edits to correct emphasise. )

[Albrenia]

Unless our brains have devolved in the past few hundreds years, you're giving it too much credit.

No, our brains have not changed. It's how society emphasises information that has changed.

(It took 3 edits to correct emphasise. )

I edit my posts a lot all the time, don't worry. I tend to miss a typo or two even after the first edit heh.

I'm not really convinced that human memory was super reliable in the past, but I only just joined this part of the conversation so I'm not quite sure exactly which memories were supposed to have been accurate.

[Lower Nubia]

No, our brains have not changed. It's how society emphasises information that has changed.

(It took 3 edits to correct emphasise. )

I edit my posts a lot all the time, don't worry. I tend to miss a typo or two even after the first edit heh.

I'm not really convinced that human memory was super reliable in the past, but I only just joined this part of the conversation so I'm not quite sure exactly which memories were supposed to have been accurate.

Think of it like this: today society teaches you to write: you don't even need to think to be able to write, you just can. Now how about a society that did the same, but for memory?

[Albrenia]

I edit my posts a lot all the time, don't worry. I tend to miss a typo or two even after the first edit heh.

I'm not really convinced that human memory was super reliable in the past, but I only just joined this part of the conversation so I'm not quite sure exactly which memories were supposed to have been accurate.

Think of it like this: today society teaches you to write: you don't even need to think to be able to write, you just can. Now how about a society that did the same, but for memory?

I can get along with that to a certain extent. It's still fallible human chemical-based memory though being transferred by imperfect human speech so there's always a chance for corruption of some kind to the information.

[Lower Nubia]

Think of it like this: today society teaches you to write: you don't even need to think to be able to write, you just can. Now how about a society that did the same, but for memory?

I can get along with that to a certain extent. It's still fallible human chemical-based memory though being transferred by imperfect human speech so there's always a chance for corruption of some kind to the information.

Of course, like a typo in a sentence, but that typo must be put into perspective of the vast amount of words I do get right.

[Albrenia]

I can get along with that to a certain extent. It's still fallible human chemical-based memory though being transferred by imperfect human speech so there's always a chance for corruption of some kind to the information.

Of course, like a typo in a sentence, but that typo must be put into perspective of the vast amount of words I do get right.

We're agreed there. The heart of a story generally remains mostly whole, even if the details fall off or are added to over time.

[Lower Nubia]

Of course, like a typo in a sentence, but that typo must be put into perspective of the vast amount of words I do get right.

We're agreed there. The heart of a story generally remains mostly whole, even if the details fall off or are added to over time.

The thing is, how would you know the details have actually fallen off, over intentionally not included?

[Albrenia]

We're agreed there. The heart of a story generally remains mostly whole, even if the details fall off or are added to over time.

The thing is, how would you know the details have actually fallen off, over intentionally not included?

That would be difficult to determine, although as you say deliberate changing of a story would make oral traditions less reliable than something written at the time. The more people with a chance to forget or deliberately alter a story as time goes on, the higher the likelihood of it occuring.

[Lower Nubia]

The thing is, how would you know the details have actually fallen off, over intentionally not included?

That would be difficult to determine, although as you say deliberate changing of a story would make oral traditions less reliable than something written at the time. The more people with a chance to forget or deliberately alter a story as time goes on, the higher the likelihood of it occuring.

This is not the right way to think about it.

Santa Claus and JFK attend a birthday party: The children say Santa and a man in a suit attended the party, the parents go, JFK attended the party, and so did a man in a suit.

They're talking about the same event, but their focus is utterly different, thus so are the details - and not through deliberate removal of information either.

[Albrenia]

That would be difficult to determine, although as you say deliberate changing of a story would make oral traditions less reliable than something written at the time. The more people with a chance to forget or deliberately alter a story as time goes on, the higher the likelihood of it occuring.

This is not the right way to think about it.

Santa Claus and JFK attend a birthday party: The children say Santa and a man in a suit attended the party, the parents go, JFK attended the party, and so did a man in a suit.

They're talking about the same event, but their focus is utterly different, thus so are the details - and not through deliberate removal of information either.

That is true.

[Australian rePublic]

In order to invoke the Streisand effect, and to continue on from here, does the OT treat women as mindless slaves?

Also, RE: Tarsonis, I've been part of this thread for a long time, way longer than that discussion on slavery, and I'm the one who pointed the OP of that thread here

[The Archregimancy]

In order to invoke the Streisand effect, and to continue on from here, does the OT treat women as mindless slaves?

Also, RE: Tarsonis, I've been part of this thread for a long time, way longer than that discussion on slavery, and I'm the one who pointed the OP of that thread here

Ruth and Esther would both be surprised to find themselves characterised as 'mindless slaves'.

Much of the Old Testament inevitably reflects a sociocultural environment where women were expected to be subservient to their fathers and husbands. This is unavoidable; the Old Testament was written in a male-centered world.

But there are also plenty of examples of women in the Old Testament being given active agency, and having an important impact on events. For example, without Esther's intervention, the Jews would all have been slaughtered by Ahasuerus's command (or, more accurately, by Ahasuerus agreeing to Haman's plan). Granted she's able to exercise that agency by virtue of being Ahasuerus's wife; but she nonetheless acts decisively to save the Jews (though that ends with the Jews vengefully slaughtering tens of thousands of Persians with Ahasuerus's permission, but there you go). The Kingdom of Judah even had a queen regnant for roughly six years, after Athaliah takes power following the deaths of her husband Jehoram and son Ahaziah (see 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 23). I'm sure other posters can easily come up with other examples.

So are women usually portrayed as subservient in the Old Testament? Yes; there's no point in arguing otherwise, whether you choose to interpret that as an inevitable byproduct of the OT's cultural environment or God's holy command (or both). Are they treated as 'mindless slaves'? Absolutely not.

[Australian rePublic]

In order to invoke the Streisand effect, and to continue on from here, does the OT treat women as mindless slaves?

Also, RE: Tarsonis, I've been part of this thread for a long time, way longer than that discussion on slavery, and I'm the one who pointed the OP of that thread here

Ruth and Esther would both be surprised to find themselves characterised as 'mindless slaves'.

Much of the Old Testament inevitably reflects a sociocultural environment where women were expected to be subservient to their fathers and husbands. This is unavoidable; the Old Testament was written in a male-centered world.

But there are also plenty of examples of women in the Old Testament being given active agency, and having an important impact on events. For example, without Esther's intervention, the Jews would all have been slaughtered by Ahasuerus's command (or, more accurately, by Ahasuerus agreeing to Haman's plan). Granted she's able to exercise that agency by virtue of being Ahasuerus's wife; but she nonetheless acts decisively to save the Jews (though that ends with the Jews vengefully slaughtering tens of thousands of Persians with Ahasuerus's permission, but there you go). The Kingdom of Judah even had a queen regnant for roughly six years, after Athaliah takes power following the deaths of her husband Jehoram and son Ahaziah (see 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 23). I'm sure other posters can easily come up with other examples.

So are women usually portrayed as subservient in the Old Testament? Yes; there's no point in arguing otherwise, whether you choose to interpret that as an inevitable byproduct of the OT's cultural environment or God's holy command (or both). Are they treated as 'mindless slaves'? Absolutely not.

Interesting. What about the NT?

[The Archregimancy]

Ruth and Esther would both be surprised to find themselves characterised as 'mindless slaves'.

Much of the Old Testament inevitably reflects a sociocultural environment where women were expected to be subservient to their fathers and husbands. This is unavoidable; the Old Testament was written in a male-centered world.

But there are also plenty of examples of women in the Old Testament being given active agency, and having an important impact on events. For example, without Esther's intervention, the Jews would all have been slaughtered by Ahasuerus's command (or, more accurately, by Ahasuerus agreeing to Haman's plan). Granted she's able to exercise that agency by virtue of being Ahasuerus's wife; but she nonetheless acts decisively to save the Jews (though that ends with the Jews vengefully slaughtering tens of thousands of Persians with Ahasuerus's permission, but there you go). The Kingdom of Judah even had a queen regnant for roughly six years, after Athaliah takes power following the deaths of her husband Jehoram and son Ahaziah (see 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 23). I'm sure other posters can easily come up with other examples.

So are women usually portrayed as subservient in the Old Testament? Yes; there's no point in arguing otherwise, whether you choose to interpret that as an inevitable byproduct of the OT's cultural environment or God's holy command (or both). Are they treated as 'mindless slaves'? Absolutely not.

Interesting. What about the NT?

Do you think the Theotokos is a 'mindless slave'? I would hope not.

Otherwise, much the same argument applies.

[Tarsonis]

In order to invoke the Streisand effect, and to continue on from here, does the OT treat women as mindless slaves?

Also, RE: Tarsonis, I've been part of this thread for a long time, way longer than that discussion on slavery, and I'm the one who pointed the OP of that thread here

I know. But seriously what's to he gained? You're right he was wrong. He's not gonna come here and even if he this whole thread is gonna pounce on him. Guy was rping sharia following Christian, was headache enough in that thread.

[Menassa]

Well, then we get in the messiness of what constitutes Jewish identity though.

You could probably argue that Samaritans are ethnic Jews, just as secularists are ethnic Jews.

Menassa is probably the better authority here. *blows conch shell*

2 Kings 17:24-26

Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the men of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and settled in its cities. When they first began dwelling there, they did not fear Adonai—so Adonai sent lions among them, which killed some of them. Then they spoke to the king of Assyria saying, “The nations that you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know the requirement of the God of the land. Therefore He has sent lions among them, and behold, they are killing them because they don’t know the requirement of the God of the land.”

[Tarsonis]

Menassa is probably the better authority here. *blows conch shell*

2 Kings 17:24-26

Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the men of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and settled in its cities. When they first began dwelling there, they did not fear Adonai—so Adonai sent lions among them, which killed some of them. Then they spoke to the king of Assyria saying, “The nations that you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know the requirement of the God of the land. Therefore He has sent lions among them, and behold, they are killing them because they don’t know the requirement of the God of the land.”

Welcome back old friend. Saw you CTE'd there for a bit

[Menassa]

2 Kings 17:24-26

Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the men of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and settled in its cities. When they first began dwelling there, they did not fear Adonai—so Adonai sent lions among them, which killed some of them. Then they spoke to the king of Assyria saying, “The nations that you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know the requirement of the God of the land. Therefore He has sent lions among them, and behold, they are killing them because they don’t know the requirement of the God of the land.”

Welcome back old friend. Saw you CTE'd there for a bit

I suppose I rose a few days later than expected.

[Hanafuridake]

2 Kings 17:24-26

Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the men of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and settled in its cities. When they first began dwelling there, they did not fear Adonai—so Adonai sent lions among them, which killed some of them. Then they spoke to the king of Assyria saying, “The nations that you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know the requirement of the God of the land. Therefore He has sent lions among them, and behold, they are killing them because they don’t know the requirement of the God of the land.”

Welcome back old friend. Saw you CTE'd there for a bit

A rabbi who rose from the grave.

You could make a religion out of -

Wait.

[Luminesa]

Welcome back old friend. Saw you CTE'd there for a bit

I suppose I rose a few days later than expected.

We put the Seder meal in the summoning circle and it didn’t quite work. I didn’t have bitter herbs, so I poured a ton of McCormick’s Dried Basil from the pantry. Not sure if that’s how it works, but I tried.

[Menassa]

I suppose I rose a few days later than expected.

We put the Seder meal in the summoning circle and it didn’t quite work. I didn’t have bitter herbs, so I poured a ton of McCormick’s Dried Basil from the pantry. Not sure if that’s how it works, but I tried.

That's a pretty decent aesthetic imo.

[Rosmana]

Strange question but is there a Nationstates Vatican or Pope?

If not I am sticking to Francis.

[Lower Nubia]

Strange question but is there a Nationstates Vatican or Pope?

If not I am sticking to Francis.

Plenty of regions which act like a virtual diocese. I'm sure you could find a sedevacantist somewhere here.