Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Calilasseia · 08-18-2007, 03:52 AM

Alternatively, if the point of this thread is to reconstruct ideas about living systems that we know are wrong just so that we can perform some socio-psychological analysis of the mindset, they why bother trying to reconstruct what people thought 2,000 years ago, when we have modern examples of the mindset to analyse and who provide us with examples of such thinking that makes such a need largely superfluous?

Chris Weimer · 08-18-2007, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

If the theme of this thread is theobiology, it should refer specifically to the biology of the divine beings, like the pagan gods, the heroes, and of course Jesus.

Judea was quite Hellenized at the time of Christ, and had ample contacts with Egypt and other pagan cultures. Christianity reflects a profound pagan influence. The idea of a God-man is prevalent in Egypt. The Hebrew God and his messengers take the shape of men. The Greek gods were both spiritual and biological, an exalted form of men identified with some aspect of nature, but subject to even higher powers like fate. The idea of God the Father (Deus Pater=Jupiter, Zeus) impregnating virgins is common to Greek/Latin mythology, and produced the semidivine heroes, like Hercules, Perseus, Teseus, Eneas. Alexander the Great considered that he was the son of Zeus, which did not conflict with being the biological son of Philip: both sperms would have mixed. The Roman emperors were considered divine. Jesus being the son of God and a Virgin was entirely compatible with current believes.

Primary sources for each one of these assertions, please.

wordy · 08-18-2007, 04:47 AM

I know the OP maybe uses the word Theobiology individually but it is a word that academics in Universities has begun to use too.

Quote:

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 12, 1793-1811 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764202045012003
© 2002 SAGE Publications
Theobiology
Interfacing Theology and Science
CAROLE A. RAYBURN

Silver Spring, Maryland

LEE J. RICHMOND

Loyola College, Maryland

Theobiology proposes that not only pertinent disciplines from the sciences be brought into theological, psychology-of-religion, and spirituality discussions and analyses but that this be done on a systematic, consistent basis. Theobiology does not presume any primacy of the sciences over theology or the psychology of religion/spirituality or vice versa. Nor is revealed knowledge or divine revelation seen as any less important than scientific knowledge. In this theory and methodology, sciences serve as tools or aids to give us deeper understanding of theology and psychology of religion/spirituality. Theobiology theoretical undergirdings include the philosophical approach, with search for truth coming about through logical reasoning rather than factual direct observation and analysis of bases and concepts of fundamental beliefs, and hermeneutics recognizing that all sciences are needed for the most accurate, appropriate interpretation of theological matters.

I'm no academic so I fail to know what that was all about.

One academic approach to theobiology would be Paul Bloom who see us humans as basically born dualists. That could explain how they thought but as others has pointed out.

Clive, we have believers now so it is more easy to ask them then to wil guess what people who wrote the scriptures thought.

It is how live believers now interpret those scriptures that have a political impact now.

What is it in human biological psychological nature now that allow such interpretations. That is the question. the interpretation takes place now.

All my experience tells me that every or almost every believer is hooked on this: There has to be something that explain how we could be alive and how all are organized.

The error of incredulity.

Seems to be a very common error. Even 40% of scientists in US have it. Was it only 30 percent supporting Evolution among all inhabs in US? A figure supporting that we seems to be born with this dualism. There has to be an agent behind it all. That is the biology behind the Theo.

Wordy

figuer · 08-18-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Primary sources for each one of these assertions, please.

Is this information really new to you??:huh: None of these things transcend what a well read, well educated person, with an interest in mythological subjects would know. Pin pointing exact bibliographies is a rather burdensome, time consuming task, are you willing to pay for the education I would be providing??

figuer · 08-18-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

I know the OP maybe uses the word Theobiology individually but it is a word that academics in Universities has begun to use too.

From the quote you provided, seems they are using "Theobiology" as a term to describe 'biological aspects of theism'. I don't like it much.

wordy · 08-18-2007, 10:41 AM

What is good with the OP version then? What is wrong with the one I proposed?

Hope it is not too off topic.

figuer · 08-18-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

What is good with the OP version then? What is wrong with the one I proposed?

I didn't like the OP version. The one you quoted I find inexact, perhaps Bio-Theology would be more representative of the idea of exploring the biological basis of theology.

wordy · 08-18-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

perhaps Bio-Theology would be more representative of the idea of exploring the biological basis of theology.

That was my hope too. I'm just not good at explaining my intent.

Clivedurdle · 08-19-2007, 04:09 AM

Theo biology does not seem to be what I am after! Bio-theology might be better - anyway of balancing the terms? The threads here on kata sarka and flesh use terms like seed. There is an assumption - actually a correct one - that human seed and plant seed are similar - but also mistakes like a seed must fall in the ground and die before growing again.

John 20 definitely has a morphing of flesh occurring over a short period between two powerful magical events - a resurrection and an ascension. That is worth a treatise on biotheology of itself!

A classic error is the Genesis breeding technique of sticks being able to determine the markings of herds. All the stuff about clean and unclean is very important - how do you think if both a germ theory and evolution do not yet exist?

Clivedurdle · 08-19-2007, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

Alternatively, if the point of this thread is to reconstruct ideas about living systems that we know are wrong just so that we can perform some socio-psychological analysis of the mindset, they why bother trying to reconstruct what people thought 2,000 years ago, when we have modern examples of the mindset to analyse and who provide us with examples of such thinking that makes such a need largely superfluous?

I don't do just becauses!

These texts are incredibly influential on a world wide basis - how many billions assent to some form of xianity?

It does help to work out how the writers were thinking and how that is interpreted nowadays. Actually, miracles should also be part of this
- the Vatican has just started its own airline to take pilgrims to Lourdes!

Why bother? To be able to track how people thought the Jesus morphing described in John 20 was reasonable and why billions still think it is. It is not good enough to state it is mumbojumbo.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-18-2007, 03:52 AM	#21
Calilasseia Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Liverpool, UK Posts: 1,072	Alternatively, if the point of this thread is to reconstruct ideas about living systems that we know are wrong just so that we can perform some socio-psychological analysis of the mindset, they why bother trying to reconstruct what people thought 2,000 years ago, when we have modern examples of the mindset to analyse and who provide us with examples of such thinking that makes such a need largely superfluous?

08-18-2007, 10:41 AM	#26
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	What is good with the OP version then? What is wrong with the one I proposed? Hope it is not too off topic.

08-19-2007, 04:09 AM	#29
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Theo biology does not seem to be what I am after! Bio-theology might be better - anyway of balancing the terms? The threads here on kata sarka and flesh use terms like seed. There is an assumption - actually a correct one - that human seed and plant seed are similar - but also mistakes like a seed must fall in the ground and die before growing again. John 20 definitely has a morphing of flesh occurring over a short period between two powerful magical events - a resurrection and an ascension. That is worth a treatise on biotheology of itself! A classic error is the Genesis breeding technique of sticks being able to determine the markings of herds. All the stuff about clean and unclean is very important - how do you think if both a germ theory and evolution do not yet exist?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.