2 ms·

>Because available historical records are quite informative. Pointers to said records? I wasn't aware there was a historical play-by-play regarding how the do

>Because available historical records are quite informative. Pointers to said records? I wasn't aware there was a historical play-by-play regarding how the dogma of today's dominant religions came to be.

bobwaycott 10y ago
1. Choose a dominant religion. 2. Grab the source material of said religion's scriptures and other authoritative texts. 3. Jot down the approximated date of said authoritative text's believed/identified authorship. 4. Interrogate the scriptures and authoritative texts for presented rationales. Admit these to be the primary offered reasoning, and the highest source of obligational determination for adherents. Where possible, include comparative and secondary sources that identify and illuminate social, cultural, political, intellectual, scientific, and philosophical understanding and reasoning of the period that may also be additional sources of obligational determinative weight. 5. Compare to known timeline of understanding physical risks of prostitution and other sexual behaviors. 6. Place everything on a timeline and see which came first. Trace the development of human ideas, beliefs, and knowledge through time. I'm not making any radical suggestions here. This is just basic intellectual and cultural history.
- clavalle 10y ago
  You are making a radical suggestion; that scriptures (or their 'source material') are the whole truth of how they themselves came to be rather than the end of a long process pre-dated by unknowable oral tradition. Further that there is a 'known timeline of the understanding of risks' -- IOW when, exactly, did humanity start to recognize some idea of cause and effect when it comes to disease. You have to recognize that this is all impossible and it is perfectly legitimate to say 'I don't know how this happened but here is a plausible scenario'. To say 'oh yes, this knowledge is out there and perfectly knowable' is quite radical.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    > You are making a radical suggestion; that scriptures (or their 'source material') are the whole truth of how they themselves came to be rather than the end of a long process pre-dated by unknowable oral tradition. I have in no way made such a claim. There is a known timeline of human understanding of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc. That knowledge is out there, and the timeline we can build with available records is perfectly knowable, insofar as humans are capable of perfectly knowing anything based on available evidence. That you seem intent on persisting in arguing the plausibility of undocumented and truly unknowable alternative scenarios makes for very boring discussion. Let's just say aliens did it. We cannot possibly prove otherwise.
    - clavalle 10y ago
      Sigh. Yes, boring is the right word. For some reason you assume people are implausibly stupid, and not just in this thread but as a general approach. It does make for very boring discussions where I have to explain things like this: I know when germs, bacteria, viruses etc were understood...I also know that the macro evidence of diseases were observed and understood at some level much, much earlier. I made it clear from the outset that I was discussing the merely plausible, but you decided to trudge down that path anyway...I'm not sure why you are trying to saddle me with that decision that you made nor how your boredom is my responsibility. Please feel free to ignore any comments of mine that you find boring in the future and keep out of that portion of the thread...I will be sure to do the same in regards to you.

bobwaycott 10y ago

1. Choose a dominant religion. 2. Grab the source material of said religion's scriptures and other authoritative texts. 3. Jot down the approximated date of said authoritative text's believed/identified authorship. 4. Interrogate the scriptures and authoritative texts for presented rationales. Admit these to be the primary offered reasoning, and the highest source of obligational determination for adherents. Where possible, include comparative and secondary sources that identify and illuminate social, cultural, political, intellectual, scientific, and philosophical understanding and reasoning of the period that may also be additional sources of obligational determinative weight. 5. Compare to known timeline of understanding physical risks of prostitution and other sexual behaviors. 6. Place everything on a timeline and see which came first. Trace the development of human ideas, beliefs, and knowledge through time. I'm not making any radical suggestions here. This is just basic intellectual and cultural history.

clavalle 10y ago
You are making a radical suggestion; that scriptures (or their 'source material') are the whole truth of how they themselves came to be rather than the end of a long process pre-dated by unknowable oral tradition. Further that there is a 'known timeline of the understanding of risks' -- IOW when, exactly, did humanity start to recognize some idea of cause and effect when it comes to disease. You have to recognize that this is all impossible and it is perfectly legitimate to say 'I don't know how this happened but here is a plausible scenario'. To say 'oh yes, this knowledge is out there and perfectly knowable' is quite radical.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  > You are making a radical suggestion; that scriptures (or their 'source material') are the whole truth of how they themselves came to be rather than the end of a long process pre-dated by unknowable oral tradition. I have in no way made such a claim. There is a known timeline of human understanding of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc. That knowledge is out there, and the timeline we can build with available records is perfectly knowable, insofar as humans are capable of perfectly knowing anything based on available evidence. That you seem intent on persisting in arguing the plausibility of undocumented and truly unknowable alternative scenarios makes for very boring discussion. Let's just say aliens did it. We cannot possibly prove otherwise.
  - clavalle 10y ago
    Sigh. Yes, boring is the right word. For some reason you assume people are implausibly stupid, and not just in this thread but as a general approach. It does make for very boring discussions where I have to explain things like this: I know when germs, bacteria, viruses etc were understood...I also know that the macro evidence of diseases were observed and understood at some level much, much earlier. I made it clear from the outset that I was discussing the merely plausible, but you decided to trudge down that path anyway...I'm not sure why you are trying to saddle me with that decision that you made nor how your boredom is my responsibility. Please feel free to ignore any comments of mine that you find boring in the future and keep out of that portion of the thread...I will be sure to do the same in regards to you.