Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Pre-Socratic Philosophy
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pre-Socratic Philosophy
    Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 02:19
Originally posted by red clay

 
 
JOE!!!!  Stop with the religion NOW.  Drop it and go back on topic.
 
 
 
 
I thought the Sptuagint was 100% history!
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 02:49

Originally posted by IamJoseph

I see the primal factor here being the translation into the greek language of the Hebrew bible, called the Septuagint, in circa 300 BCE: Paul appeared some 400 years later. The Septuagint intitiated almost all turns in modern, western history and civilization, including the faculties of Monotheism, Creationism, alphabetically written books, Democrasy [not a Greek invention!] and all world accepted laws held today.
 
What happened was, after 70 CE, when Judea was seen as destroyed and never to return, the Greeks initiated Christianity, by enjoining their beliefs with the Hebrew bible; the pre-islamic arabs initiated the Quran - both fundamentally based on the Hebrew bible: none of these peoples followed these beliefs prior to 70 CE, while all were entrenched in acquiring them via numerous wars, rivalries and hatreds.

I don't think it makes much sense to voice my disagreement in detail, I'll just say that Xenophanes wrote some 2 centuries before the translation known as Septuagint.

While much of this is correct and legitimate, there is also a problem therein. Monotheism and Creationism are not unscientific: it is based on the fundamental scientific premise of 'cause and effect'.
 
The problem you have highlighted is not with Monotheism, but with alligning this with prefered dieties and messengers, then making Monotheism as exclusively reliant on those dogmas. If for example, everyone, including scientists, agreed that the buck 'MUST' stop at one, but that none can identifiy, explain or ratify that Monotheistic ONE - because the one must be, at least, transcendent of its derivitives, there would be no problem which contradicts science.
 
Monotheism has more science and mathematical agreement than its antithesis; while preferred constructs what signifies that Monotheism are seperate issues - these must be dealt with seperately.
The cause and effect are a fundamental premise in knowledge but not specifically scientific. The mainstream definitions of science differ in a significant way from what you presented here.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 03:47
Originally posted by Chilbudios


I don't think it makes much sense to voice my disagreement in detail, I'll just say that Xenophanes wrote some 2 centuries before the translation known as Septuagint.

Yes, so did the Egyptians on stone have writings. but there is no greek alphabetical books pre-Septuagint, and the 2 centuries nominated do not have the required factors of democrasy; in fact the greek version was not democrasy. In contrast, we have a correct expression of democrasy predating the entire Greek civilzation, and it is professed in alphabtical writ.
 
Here, democrasy is not will of the people - which Greece did not adhere to any way, but that one must not follow a corrupted mass which does not have free will. The latter definition comes from the Hebrew bible. If, for example, a majority is under a dictatorship, and the people are feared to nominate their free will - then this is a corruption of the term. But if the majority is not corrupted by enforcement and fear - then only does democrasy kick in.  Think about this properly, then deduce.
The cause and effect are a fundamental premise in knowledge but not specifically scientific.
 
If you make a variation of knowledge and science, without addressing if the knowledge is correct or not, it becomes a deflective and cyclical arguement. There is no science without cause and effect; science starts as a follow-up affirmation of correct knowledge. 
 
The mainstream definitions of science differ in a significant way from what you presented here.
 
There is academic deflection and omission only. Science becomes negated where the universe is not seen as finite, a premise introduced in Genesis. It becomes a problem to acknowledge science and an infinite universe together - there is no more need to explain a cause - it was always there?


Edited by IamJoseph - 23-Nov-2008 at 03:50
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 03:55

IAmJoseph, there are plenty of threads about Hebrews or splitting the hair about what science is, I honestly do not understand how your replies address my initial points so I guess I'll just pass. I had enough of this recently, and I am not in the mood to start over.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.