Rules Revisited Again

[MichelleH]

It appears that a reminder is required. We are all adults and understand the need for decorum. We've got a great group and good discusssions going on here so let's keep it that way.

Rules that apply to all the forums (in general)

1. All posters are expected to stay within the boundaries of the topic of the forum to which they are posting.

2. Disparaging remarks about a person's religion, gender, or any other such ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.

3. These forums are not to be a place to discuss contemporary politics unless there is some direct connection to the ancient world (e.g. a discussion of a news article comparing a major country's actions to Thucydides' Melian Dialogue would be allowed; a general discussion of the current war in Iraq would not)

4. Do not post advertisements for products you are connected with in this forum

6. Please note that the nature of forums means that eventually some discussions may disappear.

The moderator reserves the right to delete posts which are deemed to be in contravention of the above rules. Repeated abuses by a member (along with repeated warnings) may lead to temporary or permanent suspension of that member's ability to post. Guests may be banned.

The Copyright question is far to large to be covered here completely. What I would suggest is if you are inserting an excerpt from an article or book, please give it full and complete reference as you would a footnote.

Please avoid posting entire articles but do make reference to them by way of a hyperlink.

MichelleH

[daybrown]

how timely. <Disparaging remarks about a person's religion, gender, or any other such ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.>

And yet we see the followers of Levantine religions disparage those who try to use reason to find the truth. St. Paul says that reason is not sufficient, that one needs faith. Perhaps he was aware that his powers of reason were not adequate, but I dont see how, *rationally* he, or the followers of his tradition, can know whether my powers of reason are sufficient.

And where the rubber meets the road is in examples like the origin of the myth of Noah's Flood. As I say in that thread, and Sam Harris has the same opinion, there are religions which dont have a problem with the data from archaeology, and the only ones which do are based on Levantine scriptures with a concept of the divine as an alpha male tyrant.

Thus we see the followers of a Levantine faith descrate the graves and ancient iconography of other religions. Thus we see them attack archaeologists in the field trying to discover the true roots of their traditions. As Sam Harris noted, the Tibetans have been subject to racial and cultural genocide at a level far worse than that of the Palestinians. Where is the outrage? Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers murdering innocents? Where do we see Buddhists attacking Hindus or their holy places?

Are there any other religions than those based on the Levantine scriptures that are engaged in genocide? Ishad Mangi, "The Trouble with Islam" asks where are the 'moderate' moslems jerking the chains of fanatics? Perhaps it is a clue that the tradition begins its great expansion with Joshua in the "Holy Land" doing what we now call genocide to the Caananites and Philistines.

I'm all for toleration. But I saw an Iranian Mullah, when asked about toleration of the Bhai and other religious traditions in Iran, while responding in farsi, have to use the english word "toleration" because it does not even *exist* in the Koran or his language. Hello?

Is it disparaging to call a spade a spade? What we have, going under the guise of 'religion' is a system of propaganda crafted to pander to the instincts of alpha males and justify their terrorism. We have seen where those who've looked at the roots of the tradition and offered explanation for what is clearly insane and/or neurotic behavior are subject to threats or fatwahs, rather than reasoned rebuttals.

I've tried to avoid ad hominum myself. but I do have this bit of advice. Much of the neurosis common in the culture today is expressed as fanatic Christianity, and their postings are not aimed so much at convincing us of the rightness of their cause, but simply the emotional need for attention. Even if only in ASCII. I dunno what their homelife is like. I do know one Christian "promise keeper" who spent so much time at his job and the spiritual meetings in the name of Jesus, that he was never home with his kids. Its characteristic of neurotics that they just dont get it.

Its better to ignore the trolls. I prefer those who provide insights and links to what has actually been found in the ground. And of course, at the other end from the trolls are the staid academic chairs with intellectual turf to defend that dont want anyone to look at the greener grass outside their field of expertise. I try to ignore them as well. Like the trolls, they get angry when their position is challenged, and like the trolls swamp you with extraneous data unrelated to the issue at hand.

If I criticize the academics is that any different than criticizing the fundamentalists? Sam Harris didnt think so. And like me, was well aware of how his comments would disturb sensibilities. Sorry about that.

[stan]

Daybrown, I like your posts because you simply state what you think, without adhominem attacks, as you say.

I also enjoy them because you are a good writer and an interesting thinker.

I also like them because you know about things that I do not, and I learn from about them from you. (Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Indo-Europeans, etc.)

Personally, I don't care if they are long. I think that if other people on the forum were more thoughtful, and would write coherent paragraphs, we'd understand each other better.

I don't always agree with everything you say, but I think you and I can live with that! So thanks for your postings.

[daybrown]

Civil discourse is appreciated. praise is over the top. Thanx. But its fairly easy for me Stan, I dont claim gospel. And I was so happy yesterday to see Sam Harris take to task those who do.

Even in classic academia, we see many debates that got quite out of hand among people who should have known better, who didnt claim to have a gospel, but acted, perhaps out of mental habit, as if they did.

I also appreciate the moderator reminding us to be civil.And I was glad too, to see Sam Harris state before he began that much of what he had to say would upset sensibilities and make people angry. And while he certainly did, the standing ovation he got from over half the audience suggests that he was saying things that nonetheless needed being said.

I was very lucky to be crippled in childhood; it gave me much more time to read, yet my mobility was not so limited that I couldnt access libraries. And because my income was so limited, I moved to the Ozark woods where land was cheap and there was no building code to prevent me from living in a shack without plumbing, centrail heat, much less air. So I was more able to spend money on books, and let alone there enough to read them.

The ancient sages would all be envious. Sam Harris commented that to limit oneself to the Levantine scriptures is like standing on the shoulders of dwarves, whereas- while I have scripture, I also have the Greek, Roman, Chinese, & Vedic authors. And now I have long range wireless high speed access to the net as well. Hog heaven.

So I am grateful, and following the advice of Epictetus, (http://anzi.biz/epictus.htm) there's nothing anyone can call me that can make me angry. My emotions are under my control, not anyone else's.

Regarding civil discourse, Epictetus noted that when someone shows him he is wrong, he is grateful to no longer be thinking incorrectly. But he noted that when he performed the service for another, the man always went away angry. Sam Harris reported that Fundamentalists have told him that nothing he can say will change their minds. As may be. But if that be so, is not learning a process of changing? And thus we come to the Avatar the Bagavd Gita speaks of, that while you may learn from one, you cannot teach one anything. I dont try. I dont get angry failing to.

[Minimalist]

This is why I try to make my disparaging remarks about religion as general as possible. None have any basis of truth so why should any one group be singled out for being worse.

[daybrown]

<This is why I try to make my disparaging remarks about religion as general as possible. None have any basis of truth so why should any one group be singled out for being worse.>
The Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Hindu, Bon, Jain, and indigenous traditions seem to be able to get along peacefully. The only problem any of them have, the only chronic violence, has been, and still is, with the followers of a Levantine religion. The non-Levantine religions did *not* empower Colonial governments with the justification for religious repression.

And of the lot, Islam is most patriarchic, the most mysogenistic, the most violent, (Darfor!) and the most consistently aggressive. But then, would *you* follow a prophet with a *9* year old wife, or believe him when he tells you that his warriors get to spend eternity as pedophiles with 12 year old virgins?

Hello?

[Minimalist]

I don't particularly disagree with your feminist point of view, D/B. I think this quote covers the issue:

"Every injustice that has ever been fastened upon women in a Christian country has been "authorized by the Bible" and riveted and perpetuated by the pulpit." [Helen H. Gardner]

I would only add that fundamentalist Moslems and Orthodox Jews are pretty equal in their subjugation of women. In fact, if they could ever find a reason to stop killing each other, they would find that they are natural allies.

[Guest]

I don't particularly disagree with your feminist point of view, D/B. I think this quote covers the issue:

Quote:
"Every injustice that has ever been fastened upon women in a Christian country has been "authorized by the Bible" and riveted and perpetuated by the pulpit." [Helen H. Gardner]

i think it is high time you stop blaming religion for all the ills of the world. there are non-religious societies that do worse to their women especially when they conquered another nation. if you want to change the world, change yourself first.

i think that rules one and two are being ignored. i see that it has come to a point where realist was chased away because he did not agree with the evolutionists that participate here. from what i gathered from the rules when i signed up, this is not an exclusive forum but available to all who stay within the rules. isn't it time to apply the rules to those who abuse them the most?

[Minimalist]

Arch, I haven't even started blaming religion for all the evils of the world. This is just warming up.

You know god, if he/she exists, is almost an irrelevancy. But religion definitely does exist and has been the single biggest detriment to human progress throughout history.

[daybrown]

Agreed that the Communists were mysogenistic. But that's beating a dead horse. Even China, in the effort to control the population, has found it expedient to support the rights of women.

And there are religions in which you can satirize their concept of the divine or redicule their practices without any of their adherents reacting as if it is a justification for violence. There are plays presented at "Komos", the Greek's most sacred festival, in which Dionysos, in whose honor the drama was presented, is depicted being helped to walk home shitfaced drunk by his servant. Dionysos was as beloved by the Greeks as Jesus was by the Christians, but nobody *ever* held an inquisition in the name of Dionysos.

The reason traces back to the basic alpha male concept of the divine seen in the Levantine scriptures and the political usefulness scripture has had to tyrants. The mysogeny is somewhat abated in much of the world by the "cult of the Virgin Mary", in that war, genocide, and inquisitions are hard to find carried out in *Her* name.

You can satirize my Goddess, or challenge my Stoic ethics, but somehow, it never makes me angry or reduces me to ad hominum. Nor would I associate myself with a religion which so frequently provides justification for violence.

Even when I call a spade a spade, I can do so without attacking the personal character of those who support religions that are so prone to violence. How they justify it is their problem. I'm not surprised to see the faithful leave venues like this. After all, it takes an act of *faith*, not reason, to believe what scripture says, and when confronted with the irrationality so often cited when the evidence from the past is discussed, it must make that leap of faith much more difficult.

That being said, academics also have a hard time here since they dont own a podium and are not used to seeing their pronouncements challenged any more than clerics in a pulpit are. I grant that many of the challenges come from nut cases. But it was a nut case, who, when I was a kid in school, promoted Plate Tectonics. The ingenuity behind the unwarrented dismissability of Plate Tectonics was remarkable and lasted for years.

There are similar challenges going on now, but at least we can be polite and remember the errors of conviction seen in the past regarding our positions.

[Minimalist]

Dionysos was as beloved by the Greeks as Jesus was by the Christians, but nobody *ever* held an inquisition in the name of Dionysos.

I'm reading an interesting book called "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty which in fact suggests that the whole concept of Jesus was just the Middle Eastern version of various Greek philosophers' ideas. Later tweaked by other groups into having a god who actually lived on earth (as a marketing ploy since all of the other Mystery Cults had supernatural gods...only) it was finally hybridized with Mithraism by the Romans and we end up with the hodgepodge which is today known as christianity.

[Starflower]

I found this forum recently and was overjoyed to think I had found a forum where I could discuss recent finds with other like minded individuals. Then I spent the last week browsing through the different threads trying not to be dismayed by all of the personal attacks I read. I continued to come back because I wanted to believe that I was wrong in my impressions. I do not believe that it is right to make disparaging remarks about other peoples belief systems or curse their sacred texts. I thought I had read in the rules to this forum that these types of things were not allowed. It appears they are only not allowed if the perpetrator has one certain set of beliefs. I nearly left this forum without expressing my feelings because I anticipate a personal attack on myself, but could not justify such cowardice to myself. I will regret reading the posts of all the wonderful people I have 'met' here.

[Beagle]

I hope you reconsider Starflower. If you notice that, for the most part, the things that disturb you are only on a few topics, then do what I do. Read the topics you enjoy and then hit the "mark all topics read" line in the upper right.

You haven't had a chance to meet the real nice folks here.

[Frank Harrist]

I have to admit that it is getting pretty bad. I have been guilty of it myself a couple times in a moment of anger. There is one (maybe two) individual(s) who spark(s) it all and he/they shall remain un-named here. I believe the theological discussions have worn out their welcome here, at least as far as I'm concerned. It results in no profound revelations or productive discussions. It is the same thing over and over and tempers flare and flaming results. I won't leave this forum because I think there are stll a few good topics being discussed and one is always free to open up a discussion of any archaeological topic which seems relevant or interesting. So essentially I'm saying that if you don't like the way things are, then change them. We all have an equal voice here. I'm not saying that to be a smartass, just to keep some members who could contribute in a meaningful way from leaving. You can always start a good thread and ignore the religious discussions. Religion and politics are things that always cause trouble. They are what cause wars.

[Guest]

I believe the theological discussions have worn out their welcome here, at least as far as I'm concerned

theological discussions are a part of archaeology, you can't escape it. just because you don't like it does it mean it is not relevant nor non-archaeological.

most, if not all, topics posted here will have their roots in the Bible, well that is if you want the correct answers. any movement to expell theological discussions just shows how narrow-minded, closed-minded, biased, and so on, people get as they are unwilling to examine a topic from all points of view.

this kind of attitude undermines any credibility those advocates may have had especially since they lay the same charges at the feet of Biblical advocates. it is also interesting to note that when the non-religious are given the opportunity to do other than what they charge the religious, they opt out and show that they are worse than any religious person

the problem comes as the non-religious want their theories and not be told that they are in error, especially when they cannot prove their theories while the Biblical supporter is able to do so.

michelle has done a good job in letting all perspectives be presented, though i wish she would clamp down on the abusive language and posts. i for one would have posted a lot differently if certain individuals could restrain themselves and actually be constructive in their rebuttals instead of lashing out at anything that hints at disagreeing with them.

but that is what discussion is all about, differing opinions from differing perspectives, if that didn't happen then you would never learn anything or refine your own position.

i digress, so my responses and posts would have been a lot different and probably a lot better if i didn't have to continually wade through the garbage thrown at me. as it stands, i filter what i write just to get enough of my position across and not waste my efforts.