|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I have not ignored it, I have dealt with it. Your interpretation is mistaken and anachronistic. Do I take it from the further absence of any evidence of the "thousands" of other "similar" myths that you now concede the point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Becuase I aksed you for the list so I can check them myself. The error of interpretation you impose here is exactly the sort of thing I was worried about. Tell me, the people in it, where they are shown to be personally culpuble? And, even if I granted you this ONE example - which I do not, I reinforce, as your analysis is grossly anachronistic - then you would have just one similar myth to that of Sodom. And that would be wholly inadequate to claim that they were definitely, certainly, about one issue, that of hospitality, identificable from a recurrent pattern. Which is why you claimed it was one of SERIES, of thousands you said. But it turns out there are not thousands. There's not even one. Your whole claim, in every detail, has been shown to be completely bogus. There is no pattern. There is no series. There is no body of worldwide myths concerning hospitality in this sense whatsoever. I'm explaining this so you don't waste your time desperately defending the superficial similarities between the greek and biblical stories to the last ditch. The fact of the matter remains that you shot your mouth off without doing any research, and when provided with materials with which to check your assumptions, you reject them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Sorry, I am not going to play this game - I have already debunked this more than once. The trivia of the town being destroyed does NOT mean that that was an important issue to the audience or the teller of the tale. Ancient mythology is not much like our modern mindset; as Levi-Strauss argued, early peoples engage in bricolage when constructing myths, not cause-and-effect analysis.
quote: For two weeks you have been maintaining there were thousands. You have had 2 weekends in which you could have popped down your local library to get that list, and have failed to do so. Once again, I am not your personal assistant - I do not do your research work for you. Furthermore, I'm not going to go on a snipe hunt. I have things to do with my time. This is an irrational position and you know it. I am not obliged to accept your nonsense theories until and unless they are proven - YOU are advancing the claim, YOU have to provide the evidence.
quote: Yes, and how many entries are there on this list, 1? Does Stith Thompson's Authority exceed any contradiction? Claiming that one researcher made a list of something does not prove the existence of the things listed. Show me the evidence, please. At least people making claims to the bible are actually able to show how the book allegedly supports their arguments. Your argument is in worse shape: that some book somewhere supports you, but you can't even show how. This amounts to argument by rumour. Show your evidence or withdraw your claim. This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-21-2005 09:59 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Oh and BTW, I see Thompsons work dates to 1938, updated in 1961. So, even if it contained what you say it contains, you would still be working with 40-year old data. This does not mean it is inherently wrong but it may have course been superceded - anthropology has moved on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Of course I failed to answer it, becuase it is trivial. YOU have failed to answer many questions, not least of which "how do you know there is a pattern without a corpus?" Your argument has been eviscerated; it is a nonsense. Belabouring your erroneous interprtation of Baucis and Philemon only makes you look progressively more stupid; there is a time to take your lumps and admit defeat, you know.
quote: No no, the part I said does'nt exist is the destroying of whole groups of people for hospitality - not the existance of hospitality as an issue at all. This must be the 20th time I have pointed this out to you, and nevertheless you still propagate this outright lie abaout my argument. So where is the list? Show me the list, as the say in the classics. You have no list, becuase there is not one. It seems quite obgvious that you lazily, and without inspection, assumed that any story about hospitality must contain the same moral. That was stupid. It now turns out that your argument is on shakier ground that even I thought, for Thompsons work is, it turns out, not related to myth at all. It's related to folk-tales, aka fairy tales, a rather diofferent order of phenomenon. I doubt you are even aware of the distinction. But this completely destroys Thompson as a relevant source, becuase all he has done is record the incidence of these events. It no longer seems at all likely to me that Thompsons work will even assist in determining what a given story that contains this element is actually about, and therefore, whether it can plausibly be construed as relvant to moral homilies. you have failed to provide the evidnce you claim you have; you do not show a grasp of the subject; you appear to misunderstand your own sources, and you have point blank failed to accept any responsibility for your position or to do any reserach to support it. This nonsense can be dismissed as lunatic ravings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: 80-year old research is still 80-year old research, son.
quote: Hehe. Yes, I can discuss this one at some length, seeing it is the geas of Cuchulain. It is 100% certainly about personal responsibility, and no large groups are wiped out. As a result, this is NOT a demonstration of a pattern of collective responsibility hospitality myths. Oh dear.
quote: Note the ABSENCE of any collective punishment mentioned, and the precise personal reward.
quote: Once again, no COLLECTIVE punishment in evidence. In fact, it specifically addresses the realtionship between host and guest, a personal rather than institutional relationship.
quote: Yep, personal relationship again, as I predicted right from the outset.
quote: ... and again. Remember I myself pointed out that Irish myth is rich with hospitality stories, none of which are collective, not even the death of Bricrui. You will note that not a single one of the items mentioned here has a collective element, and all of them discuss personal relationships, just as I pointed out they did. -- So, now that we have actually gotten to see this index, it is abundantly clear that it does not in any sense support your claims. There is no mention anywhere in this index of corporate punishment; this fully accords with my claim that hospitality as an issue is not applicable to collective entities. It is simply meaningless to these cultures in those terms - a city cannot be hospitable or inhospitable, only a person can. So, there is no body of evidence from which you can draw paralels with Sodom; there are no external myths that lend support to the claim. The claim that the biblical story is "about hospitality" has therefore been shown to be complete fiction. It is totally unsupported and unsupportable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Cite the whole myth please, or point me to an onoine version, so I can asses it for myself.
quote: Nonsense - the townsfolk have no such obligation. But remember, we are not discussing the Sodom myth - we are discussing your claim that the Sodom myth is "obviously" one of a large set. What we need to dop isv establish the consistent features of the set before we can move on to the detail of Sodom. So, where is the set?
quote: Thats like saying the story of goldilocks is about porridge. Hospitality is mentioned exactly once, and then after god has resolved to destroy the town. This is still invalid in terms of the story itself.
quote: Resorting to personal abuse now are we?
quote: again thats anachronistic. Pharoah was punished; as the embodiment of Egypt, obviously his people suffer too. But this is nothing like the collectivity you are claiming. Please show the non-biblical precedent you claim to be working from.
quote: Well your reading comprehension is piss-poor, becuase god resolves to destroy the city before hospitality is ever mentioned.
quote: Maybe. Its complicated with a society that develoepd as much as the greeks did. Certainly, I would expect it has been substantially modified. But anyway, seeing as you keep misinterpreting it, it hardly matters.
quote: Exactly my point. Myths tend to explain how things came to be than teach moralo lessons. Bu the Sodom story does NOT teach any moral lesson UNLESS you impose one upon it, because the sin is not named.
quote: Except that Sodom is NOT accused specifically of doing wrong in any way related to hospitality, or anything else. And furthermore, yes I knew it was a list, and I also knew that because it was a list, you couldn't possibly have the kind of information you claimed to have: a large set of hospitality myths. But at least if you had provided some names of alleged members of this set, they could be checked. It has been clear from the beginning that you are defending a favoured interpretation, and that the world-wide similarities you claim do not in fact exist.
quote: Well that's a pretty frail hook to hang so strong an argument on, wasn't it? And now that your bluff has been called, and you admit yourself you are NOT working from a study of comparitive mythology which shows a large set of corporate hospitality stories, what exactly is the basis of your claim?
quote: And once again: HOW do we know there is a PATTERN, until the PATTERN can be shown? Please show evidence for the PATTERN.
quote: But there IS no academic standard, because there is no pattern. And in fact, such academic standard as there is, should presumably be that such collective hospitality stories are anachronistic - just as I said.
quote: Thats not valid: I was asking for YOUR evidence. And further more, I provided you with references to consult and you refused to do so.Pot -> Kettle. quote: And it is BECUASE I want to read them for myself that I keep asking you to show the pattern, and the stories of which it is comprised. And then when you finally revealed your list, guess what - there was no such pattern, and no content by which it could be checked.
quote: Umm, thats STORY, singular.
quote: that is most certainly NOT an assumption, as you would be aware had you reserached the topic. I point out again I referred you to two works that would discuss these aspects of these cultures, albeit not in a mythological sense. You rejected them. There is no assumption here other than your assumption that I am wrong.
quote: Really? Despite the fact that your argument has been shown to be totally without content? That it cannot be supported? That there is no evidence for what you claim, and that you exaggerated the evidence you claimed to have seen? Are you QUITE sure?
quote: Shrug. Sure - you have no evidence and you know it, so you're gonna keep banging the same drum for lack of anything better to do. Pitiful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: As you can see, the statement still parses perfectly well if any city that suffered cataclysmic disaster were substituted. The COINCIDENCE of Sodom being mentioned in conjunction with hospitality is so far the most compelling argument you have proposed. Any more? This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-22-2005 09:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: So far you have exactly one. Any more? bang * bang * bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Oh please; all you have is a verse in the bible and wow, some passages in the same book. This is irrelevant to your claim; you said that this was obviously a hospitality myth like a pattern of thousands. Unfortunately there is no pattern of thousands. Please stick to the issue. Because an alleged Jewish interpretation was mentioned previously, I already located a copy of the Torah and looked up the same story - did you? And guess what - its almost identicical to the biblical version, unsurprisingly. Its quite clear, again, that whatever sin Sodom was supposed to have committed is not mentioned. But lets see what else you have. Unfortunately this still does not say what you seem to want it to say. The first question is how Lot gets into Sodom. the second question is how the angels get in as far as the market place, and are only suibsequently attacked. The third is why this exercise of power is construed as a hospitality issue. You even highlighted "charity", as if hospitality and charity are the same thing. Its not clear what it is you thought this would show. I've already pointed out that beinf iunpleasant to the poor RATHER THAN hospitality appeared to be their sin, but you rejected this - so I'm not sure why you raise this now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: ... contradicts the claim the claim that Sodomites were preying on passers by, and thus violated hospitality. Please stick to your own argument, or at least indicate which variant of your rapidly changing story you want addressed.
quote: ... ALSO contradicts the claim that the Sodomites are preying on passers by, becuase the angels walk up unmolested. Once again you keep citing stuff that is CONTRARY to your own argument.
quote: ... despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to think that they HAVE any such obligation towards Lot. there is absolutely no basis for this claim whatsoever; it is wholly out of place in the setting. Can you provide any evidence at all which supports this interpretation?
quote: No, nonsense. What evidence do you have for this claim? Travellers had NO right to expect protection from anyone; they were on their own. And they were doing exactly what travellers DO have the right to do, which is take up residence in the city square. If the Sodomites were being bad to travellars, why did they let them in the city gate in the first place? Once again this makes no sense. This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-24-2005 04:50 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes. Have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Then you have completely missed the point. Where are the external examples of similar myths? Eh? I'm still waiting. But you cannot produce any becuase there are not any. I don't consider analysis of Jewish Religion by Jews, oir christian religion by christians, to be free of self-serving bias. Thats exactly whay I am looking for material unrelated to Sodom specifically to test the validity of your claims.
quote: You're an arrogant fucker for someone who's claims have been consistently dismantled. I can and will take the same stance regarding Jewish redactions of the Torah or Talmud as I take with christians. It remains the case that your claims are wholly unsupported. There is no evidence for the story of Sodom being "about hospitality" in any degree.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024