Elijah

Yea I know man and lord knows I wish you would give that up and help me out over here. Judaism may be the original source of Plato's ideas like has been suggested but that is just way too big of a fish to fry here today and it's easier to just point at the obvious influence of the Greeks on the Christians then the influence on the Greeks by the Jews. Come on man help me out.

spin

Notice I said "may believe". One uses what the writer writes in order to fathom what he thinks. As you don't have any other source for the writer, that's what you have to use.

The text itself is ancient evidence. Cite from the text what supports your view.

We only have the text, so whatever we make of the writer comes from the text. Where in the text do you get your understanding of the ancient writer?

The fact that you seem to be projecting your own views onto the ancient writer.

You seem not to be getting your ideas from the text: you are reading your ideas into it. Exegesis comes from an analysis of the text. Eisegesis comes from a reader's rewriting of the contents of the text.

In short, it seems you have no evidence at all for your conjecture.

How do you know anything about the ancient world and what people believed if you don't have any evidence?

We normally have to deal with what a text actually says, such as the unclean spirit jumping from a man to a herd of swine, to have any idea of what the writer is communicating of his world.

It doesn't matter that you can explain what happens to your own contentment, if that explanation doesn't come from any evidence.

Please answer this earlier question:

I'm not fishing for a restatement of your views, but an answer based on the text itself!


spin

Elijah

Doesn't matter about the “may”. Where are you getting your supernatural position?
The text you cited support my view. They weren't referring to supernatural entities but mental conditions. Unless you see something in the text that suggests otherwise?


Reality. I use reality to guide my interpretation. I imagine the person writing it is not retarded and just go from there. Where do you get your understanding of the ancient writer? What philosopher best illustrates his world view from that time you think?
Exactly you got it, just using a little bit of reason. Who’s views are you projection onto the writer.


I’m reading reality into it since I imagine it is supposed to have occurred there. I don’t see any point reading scripture and imagining a cartoon in my head as you must be doing.
Yes yes no evidence. Show me how it’s done.
I don’t know that’s why I’m here having this conversation.

It comes from the story, isn’t that the evidence we are supposed to be using? What makes an unclean spirit a supernatural entity to you and not a psychological phenomenon? From the text.

I thought I already did. From before, If you’ve gone crazy, your craziness/unclean spirit doesn’t affect the animals around you? Sure it does, if you act weird the animals are going to be freaked out as well.

Anything I say there not correspond with the texts? What in the text says supernatural phenomenon to you?

spin

When someone talks of unclean spirits, of demons and of gods, we have to have a reason from the ancient writer why they do not mean what they say.

What in the text makes you think that it is not dealing with unclean spirits but mental conditions?

When you don't seem to know anything about the world of the text, I see no reason for you to assume that you have an insight into the reality of the time. You must deal with that time (of the ancient writer) not this (ours).

I have said that we work from the ancient text. Please do so and stop retrojecting your views.

You are confusing the act of negating the ancient writers views by overwriting them with your own as an act of reason.

No, you aren't. You are presuming you know what someone meant without showing the evidence for the presumption.

Do I need to cite what you've already said to show how you apparently don't work with any evidence?

Why then do you assert your assumptions, if you don't know?

The notion of psychology did not exist at the time, so you cannot expect the writer to work using such a conception. Therefore to mention the possibility of psychological phenomena with regard to the text is anachronistic. This is your retrojection, not derivable from the text.

The text shows the unclean spirit to be an entity that Jesus can talk with. It is an entity with volition. It is an entity that can manipulate people as well as swine. this makes the entity to not be part of nature.

Sadly, no. I don't think you've actually opened a bible to look at the passage to understand what the writer is saying.

The text doesn't say anything about the man being crazy.

You are omitting the separate nature of the unclean spirit.

Just what you said.

It talks of a "spirit", which it indicates has the ability to pass into people and
animals and control them. That is not a natural phenomenon.

I have seen nothing from what you said that is actually based on evidence from ancient texts, though it is there that you must start your analysis. Meaningful opinions about the past must be based on the past.


spin

Elijah

Where are you getting this from? What’s the evidence you are basing this off of?

I think that the unclean spirits are mental conditions in the story because that’s all they can be.


The world in the text is the world now, reality doesn’t change just our understanding of it. Just because you have an incorrect understanding of the natural world (world flat) but that doesn’t mean you automatically hold to superstitious thinking. There is being off on your understanding of the world and then there is believing in just crazy nonsense.
OK where in the text does he state the nature of unclean spirits as being supernatural entities? Where’s the demonology?
I don’t know the ancient writers view so I have to assume one and I choose a rational one because I believed that people of reason existed then just like now.


I’m presuming that I don’t know the writers views. You’re presuming you do know, (for all scripture that is) that a supernatural understanding should be employed but you haven’t shown me what evidence you are basing your presumption on.
I would like you to cite how you came to the supernatural conclusion that you have about the text and religion in general.

Because as I’ve said I’m here seeing what your position is based on. I’ve already stated earlier what mine is.
That’s crazy. When a word is invented/labeled isn’t when the phenomenon begins. Like dawkins inventing memes.

Yea it’s a person with an unclean spirit. He’s talking to the person. Your understanding of daemons can actually physically talk? Could the people see them visually? Describe them as much as you can.
Just show me how you got to an understanding of unclean spirit as a supernatural entity?

Today, if someone is possessed with an unclean spirit , has a supernatural ghost taken control, do they have a mental health issue that has emerged and needs to be addressed? What is the reality of the situation in the story?
Memes are separate. Just ideas passed… conviction carried.
Could you be more specific please?
A self destructive meme can look like it’s controlling an individual and can be passed between people. As all memes can.

I consider this a plain reading of the text based on my experience in reality. If I need to be educated on the opinions of the past then educate me. That’s why I’m here having this conversation, to see where the supernatural assumption is coming from. What evidence textual or otherwise is the source of this? You can’t read scripture with the assumption it’s coming from a supernatural mind without questioning that assumption. Begging the question fallacy.

spin

The first thing you do when you try to understand a text is to read it and try to work out what it says.

It seems I cannot enunciate the problem I see clearly enough for you, so thank you for the discussion, Elijah.


spin

Elijah

Work out what it says by overlaying a supernatural understanding that you can't seem to support?

I feel your pain in not being able to illustrate a fallacy to another person.

It was fun chatting :wave:

No Robots

You're on the right road, but you're going in the wrong direction.

The Judaism of Christ hit Greek philosophy profoundly. In their essence, these two thought-realms are in complete harmony. However, the Christian religion that emerged from their fusion also included all kinds of admixtures from Greek, pagan and Jewish superstition. The obligation of the thinker is to carefully delineate what belongs to the Judaism of Christ, what belongs to philosophy and what belongs to superstition. The ultimate point is that the Judaism of Christ and the whole of true philosophy stand together in firm opposition to all superstition. Any attempt to derive Christ's Judaism from Greek philosophy is contrary to the true causal relationship between them, and is thus itself superstitious.

spin

The text plainly talks about spirits and demons and gods and devils. These on face value falsify your theory. Your job is to show why your theory is not falsified by showing that the ancient writers conform to your theory. You cannot simply claim that they do.

You can't feel my pain: you don't seem to understand the issues. And I was fishing for methodology, not trying to illustrate fallacy: a theory is just a theory until it is successfully supported with evidence. Talking about memes and how you expect ancient writers to have understood demons and spirits has not been shown to be related to anything outside your head.

Sorry, it wasn't for me. I've come across numerous people on this forum who seem to espouse fact free theories.


spin

Amaleq13

The fault is clearly not yours, spin, but the effort is appreciated.

What is apparently not grasped here is that the world in an ancient text is the world as the author understood it. What is also apparently not grasped is that assuming, without justification from that ancient text, that the author shared a modern understanding of the world is fundamentally flawed thinking.

Statements of belief in abilities or entities that do not comport with the natural world and which are offered without a rational reinterpretation or explanation must be taken at face value as supernatural beliefs. It is difficult to believe that anyone with a genuine interest in understanding ancient texts cannot understand the logical necessity of this axiom.