The History of Me: An Existential Look at Western History.

[iSoldMySoul2ThaDevil]

I was blocked by theist77 for merely asking questions. I now see the differences between theists like you and him. You are not afraid to discuss your beliefs, it seems that he is. I tried replying to you again on his video but it says I was blocked, and all of my comments were removed. But in case my previous post didn't get through -- be sure to message me tonight MCL

[alliaskis]

What was the impetus for this video?

[MereChristianLogic]

@alliaskis I have been studying near east and western civilizations lately. I was thinking about what all of this history has done to create me and the civilization that I live in. I wanted people to see the beauty of what the U.S. fathers saw. And I hoped some of my U.S. brothers would appreciate the world our fathers tried to create. And to those that are outside of the U.S. I hoped to just touch on what I call the brotherhood of man. Speak of our flesh and blood. Thanks

[herbiepop]

@MereChristianLogic The US doesn't seem to be an exemplar of democracy, freedom or capitalism to many of us from the outside. I think that one needs to see other cultures first hand to make fair comparisons. Many US citizens seems to be rather insular. 

[alliaskis]

A poignant, poetic declaration.

[herbiepop]

No more than there was an historical Achilles who looked like Brad Pitt. Neither of the characters may have existed at all, they may be composites or distorted perspectives of someone who did exist. How would a film of the Ten Commandments be made now? Tom Hanks' Moses meeting a wise cracking Morgan Freeman as god? Perspectives change.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop so all written history centuries old or days old is pretty useless?

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy I don't know how many times I have to tell you this but no! Where did I say it was useless?

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop As I read your comments I understand you to say that ALL history is subjective and it seems that you do not give much creditability to it.Everyone has a purpose to their description of history so it cant be believed. Maybe I am just stupid but that is what I hear you say.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy Just because something is subjective by its very nature does not not alone mean that it is not credible. History obviously is subjective. It is written by one person and then interpreted by another. If you say you went to the store an hour ago I have only your word to go on but that doesn't mean that it can't be believed. However I wouldn't bet my daughter's life on the truth of it.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop You did not say in was useless. According to your opinion we cant believe anyone because they are prejudice to their view..SOOOO why read it. Lets just watch movies and the good looking actors with their jucy interpertation of history.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy You can believe what you want, that is not at issue. History is very useful. The opinions expressed in historical documents can be very informative. Something happened at the time and different people's accounts of what they say happened can be illuminating and allow one to form a view. Even movie interpretations can tell us something about how we view the past.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy You have real trouble actually paying attention to what people say without applying your prejudice to what you think they say from assumptions you make about their position. At least that seems to be the case in your exchanges with me.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop As you dont understand the concept of God, I dont understand you.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy Whilst I'm flattered by the comparison, what's to understand? My words mean exactly what they mean no more no less.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop I am trying to understand NOT assume. You just seem to have a negative approach to history and why it is prejudiced to the writers view.I would love to have someone confirm your opinion or understand my confusion over your comments.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy I don't have a negative approach by any means I am just careful and explicit about what assumptions I am making. Why do you need confirmation that history is documents written by men and interpreted by men? It is self-evident.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop I need documentation (of other sourses) for the reason you stated that writers of history ar not objective. When I look at history I am looking for truth/fact. Is that a crazy idea?

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy I would say that there is no single 'truth' that can be found. At best you will have an informed opinion that you can justify with reference to the documents.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop Amen, that is close enough!

[2eelShmeal]

@acyberguy TIME OUT !!! lulz

I've been reading this whole exchange. First off, I hope all's well with you.

I think I MAY be able to help somewhat here. Go to my channel and under the featured vid, you'll see a playlist called "Excavating the Empty Tomb", from the user TruthSurge. I have it all set up so all you have to do is click.

It deals with the historicity of Jesus and Mark's writings in particular. It seems Mark may have been borrowing a bit from Homer's Odyssey. Be brave, DO IT!!

[acyberguy]

@2eelShmeal Hey dog,

I am hesitant to look but I will read it.It will probably start another hullabaloo. def: Great noise or excitement; uproar. LOL

[acyberguy]

@2eelShmeal WOW, its 13 vids. I will look at each one and hopefully have a response.

Thanks for the link.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy What you will have when you finish is Truthsurge's interpretation of the documentation and scholarly opinion. If you listen to someone like Lee Strobel you will be given an opposing opinion. This demonstrates exactly what I was saying. Both are informed opinions supported by historical evidence and they reach opposite conclusions. History is this sort of debate, it is not establishing 'a truth'.

[2eelShmeal]

@acyberguy Take your time with it, that's all. It brings up a lot of questions which for me are moot because like I told you before, I think the teachings attributed to Jesus (The writings and teachings of Jesus) are very wise, for the most part.

There's so much goodness and wisdom in the writings, that (to me) it doesn't matter if Jesus ever lived, let alone was resurrected. The words that people claim he spoke are wise, therefore I don't care if they were uttered by a madman.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop What is prejudice about my comments...they are inquires not statements.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop I am not sure what the corelation of someones look in a movie has to do with history.Movies are not even close to history, are they?

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy It has as much to do with how they are described as behaving, both are the writers/actors/directors perspective.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop The Ten Commandments can be made any way that want, its Hollywood not history.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy History is told many forms. No one form is any more credible than any other.

[herbiepop]

Whether events in history actually occurred or not is not a meaningful question to me. Is it more likely that the film 'Troy' is true or the works of Homer? Both are likely based on some historical kernel of truth coloured by the storytelling of the day. The film cuts out Greek gods because they are not credible to a modern audience. What of the film 'The Ten Commandments'? Was there an historical Moses that looked like Charlton Heston?

[herbiepop]

The matter of George Washington's teeth is less a source of controversy than say his beliefs. These may be interpreted from his writings or those of his contemporaries but these interpretations will be highly subjective. They will depend on who is doing the interpreting and when and what they are trying to prove and why.

[herbiepop]

Even my own memories about my father have an order of uncertainty (a much reduced uncertainty than that of an historical character). I knew a man I believed to be my father, I could have been deceived both about his teeth and being my father. However these facts are consistent with most of my reality and hence I accept the evidence of my own memory. This kind of fact has a higher order of certainty than an historical fact - for me.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop My first impression is that we should burn all history books according to your description of history,Now having said that I somewhat agree with your opinion. For me history does present a enough fact/truth about a subject "if" I can confirm other sources.History has to be critical in understanding our past. Mere mentioned F. Josephus and I have read Eusebius of Caesarea where the latter had his

contemporaries critique his writings good and bad, this gave me a bit of truth

[herbiepop]

By Herodotus' notion of historical facts the poems of Homer contained facts. To us it is legend and story evolved from generations of oral tradition, much as the Hebrew bible is. Our criteria for history have changed.

[herbiepop]

History, and in particular implying a narrative structure in history, is always from a subjective perspective. Your own perspective is a very parochial one. Although trying to structure the past started with Herodotus and Thucydides, in Old English the word itself derives from 'story'. History remains just that, telling stories about the past. As all people have, you use you version of history to justify your own world view.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop You may have addressed in another vid , I forget. What level of fact can we attribute to history?

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy I have, particularly to acyberguy. You use the the word 'fact' as though it has some objective meaning. Facts have a value relative to their criteria. There are faith based facts, history based facts, science based facts and so on. One is only favoured over another depending on what you are claiming. There is no objective set of facts separate from the framework of criteria you devise.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop If I read a history book on "any" subject am I supposed to assume that the facts/truth of that book are all biased?

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy By it's very nature history is opinion. It is words written by men. Sometimes it is deliberately deceptive sometimes merely a subjective point of view but it is always from a point of view. Even recording a 'factual' event it is from a point of view. A republican newspaper will record an event differently from a democrat one. Both will enter the archives as history.

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop That makes sense. Let me ask this, how are we to evaluate history by using a filter that presumes everything is subjective and shaded to a persons own beliefs.If three historians said George Washington had wooden teeth and one source said he did not can't we we deduce G.W. had wooden teeth. My inquiry is only to find truth/facts in history.

[herbiepop]

@acyberguy Well in my world whether George Washington had wooden teeth or not can only ever be an historical 'fact'. That means a subjective judgement about contemporary accounts. I cannot ever 'know' whether he in fact had wooden teeth or not. I can know it as an historical fact, i.e. it is said that... or it is accepted by historians that... But I cannot know that there actually was a George Washington who had wooden teeth in the same way that I know that my father had false teeth.