The debate on Bethlehem

[antinazi77]

insain

 

[kewl]

pb - someone else is responsible for how you perceive things???

 

[psychoblast]

kewl:

My perceptions of things external to myself (such as what is written on the computer screen in front of me) are affected by those who created those externalities.

If you paint a car blue, you are responsible for me perceiving it to be blue.

If you write, "I am Catholic" then you are responsible for me perceiving you as Catholic.

As a final example, you are responsible for me perceiving your post as addressing a question to me, though your use of "PB" to start your post and three "?" to end your post.

Underlying your question is, presumably, the idea, "We take responsibility for ourselves." Which is a nice idea, in general. But, for the reasons I have stated herein, it can be taken to an improper and absurdist extreme.

Of course, we can get into a long, complicated and semantic debate over what "responsibility" is, what "perception" is, and on the fact that for every action, there are many DIFFERENT zones of responsibility. I was responsible for even reading Dimmo's first post. Had I not read it, I would not have perceived it as taking any position. And no one twisted my arm to make me read it (not even Dimmo). So, from one particular perspective, you can "blame" me for everything that followed by reading of Dimmo's post. From one particular perspective, "but for" my reading of Dimmo's first post, none of the other crap would have followed and thus I personally caused it all.

From another perspective, SoHi caused it all by first claiming Micah referred to a city, or by starting that other thread to begin with. "But for" him doing those things, everything else would have been avoided.

From another perspective, Dimmo caused it all by writing his first post, or writing it in a way that objectively (well, objectively to me) seemed to be siding with SoHi as to the meaning of Micah.

Since it was extremely likely I would read Dimmo's post -- and since, apparently, he intended and wanted me to read it -- I doubt that you could seroiusly argue that all these perspectives are invalid EXCEPT that I caused it all. Or even that all these perspectives are equally valid (you can probably guess how I would rank the validity of these perspectives).

~psychoblast~

p.s. Yes, "objectively to me" was an intentional irony.

 

[dimmo]

a) I did leave out the different size fonts and stuff (didn't u read it all? is that another perception problem? *grin* The post was clearly formatted - I quoted you and responded to what you said undernearth, all the way down. You had quite a few things for me to answer... one thing psychoblast: WHY ask a question if you're not going to listen to the answer? Is it because you don't want to know the answer?

This fits in nicely with the above:

I want P to be true.
Therefore, P is true.

b) You selectively answer, you still hold on to the skewed a+b+c (and now d) without even addressing my concerns.

c) You eventually admitted that Bethlehem wasn't a person (I'm not still saying you're saying it's a person!). But prior to saying that, you really dug the boots in me didn't you? Your assumption, based on the evidence, was clearly wrong.

d) Because you still fail to address any of my concerns, and I have outlined them in the above post - I CAN only ASSUME that "Face it, Dimmo, you STARTED OUT arguing it was a city, and only adjusted later to the possibility it was a clan" is just another wrong assumption, skewed perception if you will. Wishful thinking perhaps.

I can't waste any more time on you while you just keep restating your old arguement, and you waste my time by asking questions to which you don't respond to. How pointless it that?

It's a two way street psychoblast.

 

[ryle62]

Just to add one point... We actually don't know the exact time towns formed or dissolved, AND there are a lot of examples of a proper noun confusing things in the NT, like Bethlehem as a tribe or town. The bigger debate involves Nazareth. Some historians think "Jesus of Nazareth" really meant he was a Nazarene, a Jewish sect, and not from a town called Nazareth. That was a popular debate for a while, but now (I think) the concensious is that Jesus actually did live in a town called Nazarene (all according to the smartest man I know who spends most of his time on dig in the Holy Land).

Secondly, the surpise of the Jews that the man claiming to be the awaited savior was not a military leader but a spiritual one is a big idea in the NT, and only serves to reinforce to the readers the faith of the Disciples and early Chritians. Nowadays, most scholars couldn't imagine God coming to Earth only to fight some Assyrians. Besides, he needed the Assyrians later as part of his divine plan for Israel.

Personally I don't think nitpicking historical details to be important. Not to belittle this thread at all, but to me, I don't think God cares about much except our desire to seek him out. Questioning of Biblical miracles isn't neccesary or blasphemy... it is simply irrelevent. I think we would all agree that, assuming the existance of God, he could do anything he wanted (that's the definition, our inate idea of perfection).

What am I saying? Just that personal revelations about God are so much more important than historical accuracy that it should be left to the archeologists and such.

 

[miamistu]

ok thats the kind of post you stare at for 2seconds then say "HAHAHAH fuck that" and move on

Lol, that was exactly the reaction I had.


Also, I do not know if this adds anything (becuase Im just too stoned to read this thread right now) but "bethlehem" is beytlechem in hebrew and means house of bread. Seems to me that "house of bread" would refer more to a family than a city.

 

[antinazi77]

the bermuta triangle, could not be half as crazy as the middle east.