Author Topic: Camel bones argument against Bible?  (Read 4456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Camel bones argument against Bible?
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2014, 05:38:23 am »
Strange as it may seem, I actually agree with Ironchew here. Pre-1970's America was already overwhelmingly Christian, so proselytising was essentially pointless because it would be a case of preaching to the choir. It's only become a thing more recently because non-Christian Americans are now a sizable portion of the population.

Offline Star Cluster

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
  • I need my space.
Re: Camel bones argument against Bible?
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2014, 09:50:21 am »
Most of you here are probably too young to remember Blue Laws, but some orf us old fogies do.  While most of them have been repealed, they still do exist in isolated areas all over the world.  If you are unfamiliar with them, in the US, they forbade the selling of certain items on Sunday or outright prevented certain types of stores from even opening.  And it wasn't just "sinful" items such as alcohol or condoms, etc., it was such mundane things as toiletries, furniture, clothing, and a wide list of items depending on location.  Most Blue Laws were repealed in the late 60's thru the 70's, but like I said, some areas do still hold onto them as can be expected.  This does parallel with the fundie emergence as they felt like their god was being removed from everything, so they became more vocal and vehement.  They just couldn't let go.

As for the article about the camel bones, if accurate, it just points out another historical inaccuracy of the Bible.  It reminded me of the Biblical story of Joshua leading the Isrealites on a raid of the city of Ai " And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day." (Joshua 8:28).  The only problem with this is that archaeological evidence places the city of Ai at the modern location of et-Tell in the West Bank of Israel, which had been uninhabited and in ruins for 1000 years prior to the supposed arrival of Joshua and his merry band of God-sponsored killers.  And while there are some opponents to the location of Ai at et-Tell, most archaeologists and biblical scholars concur that it is the correct location.  Linky thingy

While I agree the bloggist in the linked article is a bit snarky about this news, it does reflect a pattern that continues to show the Old Testament as nothing more than folklore and legend rather than an an accurate history of anything. 
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 09:52:15 am by Star Cluster »
The heavens convince me there is no god.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.--Steven Weinberg

Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery--Robert G. Ingersoll

I don't know why people compare George Carlin to God. He's great and all, but he's no George Carlin.-Anon.

Offline Canadian Mojo

  • Don't Steal Him. We Need Him. He Makes Us Cool!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Gender: Male
  • Υπό σκιή
Re: Camel bones argument against Bible?
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2014, 09:54:16 am »
Strange as it may seem, I actually agree with Ironchew here. Pre-1970's America was already overwhelmingly Christian, so proselytising was essentially pointless because it would be a case of preaching to the choir. It's only become a thing more recently because non-Christian Americans are now a sizable portion of the population.
It's a chicken and egg situation.
Did the fanaticism come about because of the decline or did the decline come about because of the fanaticism? At this point the answer hardly matter because it is certainly a negative feedback loop and the tighter they squeeze the more people slip away.
My take on it is that you had a (predominantly) Christian nation that after WWII started to re-evaluate itself socially and become more liberal in it's thinking but was still Christian at its core. Certain elements, which preferred authoritarianism and shunned change, started to push the whole devoutness schtick in order to try and maintain the status quo and started the fundie ball rolling.

Really there was little choice; there is no valid justification for many of the lines they draw, there is only appeal to authority. They were forced to take shelter in the only place they could and inevitably they had to push its supposed supremacy over humans and its inerrantness when it was questioned. Unfortunately for them, as somebody once said, the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible.

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: Camel bones argument against Bible?
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2014, 10:41:50 am »
For those of you who were not yet alive in the sixties and seventies and before, one generally did not encounter proselytising in public and religious protesters or fundie politicians, especially in day to day life. The exceptions were Krishna's on street corners and in airports being colorful, loud, and weirdly amusing/annoying, as were hippie Jesus Freaks, who were super liberal "peace-and-love-and-flowers, man". The fundies who did make a lot of noise got some press coverage. McCarthy-ites would say "godless communists", but their main focus was secular patriotism, and everyone was scared of the USSR because of the Cold War hype about us bombing each other into annihilation.

The Catholic church was very active in publicizing two things that were pissing them off, almost equally; that the peace sign coincidentally looked like an alleged witch craft symbol of a broken upside-down cross, and after Roe V Wade, abortion being legalized. Otherwise, churches were mostly quiet social institutions that did charitable work, depending on denomination. The adage "Never discuss sex, religion or politics" in public and at social gatherings was generally followed. People didn't immediately ask you what church you belonged to like they do now, because it was considered very rude, and a sign of a fanatic or nosy snob (whether your church was a wealthy denomination in your town was of interest to society climbing snobs back then).

The Civil Rights movement and anti Vietnam war protests were very prominent in the news. My republican parents supported both, believe it or not, since back then conservatism was about business and finance, not rights issues. They were WWII generation and had seen enough of war to hate it very much. Really, the series Mad Men is as accurate a portrayal as a dramatic fiction can be in showing what people generally talked about and cared about back then.
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Camel bones argument against Bible?
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2014, 01:53:27 pm »
As far as the death of Christianity goes...

My best guess as to what will happen, based of off past patterns, is that Christianity will eventually diminish to the point where it stops being a public religion and starts being a private religion.  The only way to "wipe it out completely" would be by the sword, which is obviously unethical and anti-freedom :P

Honestly at this point, I stop caring - religion should be a private matter, not a public matter anyways.  You will still have fundies of various stripes.

It's not inconceivable, however, that Christianity will simply blip out one day of its own volition.  Then, 50-200 years later, someone will decide to revive and modernize Christianity and it will be the same yet different.  Who knows, it could even end up under the "pagan" umbrella.

Regardless, politics in America will be just as polarized as it's ever been, much to the annoyance of everyone.

That's my best guess, at least.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline mice34

  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Camel bones argument against Bible?
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2014, 07:42:38 pm »
I swear I read this at least a dozen years ago... or maybe I'm confusing camels with cattle? There are many, many anachronisms in the NT, which is why nobody believes it was written at the time it was "set."

Offline The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist

  • The Very Punny Punisher and Owner of the Most Glorious Chest
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4316
  • Gender: Female
  • And I fired two warning shots... into his head.
    • Tumblr Image Blog
Re: Camel bones argument against Bible?
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2014, 05:08:09 am »
If it's true, all it means is that a few mistakes were made.  It doesn't automatically invalidate anything else.

It doesn't necessarily disprove everything else, but it does cast a great deal of doubt on it. If the bible can get one detail wrong, it can get any detail wrong, which disproves the notion that it's the literal word of an infallible god. One could always argue that it was "inspired" by god, of course, but without any corroborating evidence to support its claims of the supernatural, there really isn't any empirical basis for believing that it's true. Even if we accept that certain portions are, in fact, the word of god, with man's word strewn in between, we still have no way of verifying which is which.
"Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer."

My Blog (Sometimes NSFW)