|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 04:02:45 [Permalink]
|
quote: ...perhaps he's what you evolutionist have been looking for...
Only, we're not evolutionists - well most of us (I don't really know if there are any hanging out or not), we don't or have not made our studies in evolution.
As for us finding the body, you're the one making the claim of his existence. The only thing anyone has ever said, as far as I'm aware is that they speculate on the possibility/probability the jesus didn't exist.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 10:09:35 [Permalink]
|
As far as the the other dying and rising "gods" of the mystery religions they were sworn to secrecy the exact opposite of the of the apostles who boldly proclaimed that Jesus had risen in front of hostile witnesses. That's just blatant nonsense. Of all the saviors that I mentioned only Dionysos was at the center of a "mystery cult." And to say "mystery" is not to imply that we know nothing about it, or that it wasn't immensely popular. In fact Dionysian worship was the source of Byzantine culture. The mystery lies only at the heart of the religion. If you are interested in the subject the best book on it is a translation of Carl Kerényi's monumental work Dionysos-Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life The mystery of Dionysos is on the same level as the mystery of the Trinity or that of transubstantiation. As for the bold Apostles, we have no proof that they are any more historic than Jesus. As they are an exact match for the 12 (one for each sign of the Zodiac) Apostles of Mithra their very existence is suspect.
That my friend is the major diffrence between Christianty and any other religion ancient or modern. Proselytizing is the major difference? Not something to be proud of. Most of the classic religions considered proselytizing to be beneath them. However the Christians are not to blame for it's invention. That belongs to the followers of Epicurus sometime around 270 BCE.
Concerning blind Homer I'm pretty sure he didn't claim to be an eyewitness of the siege of Troy ,considering he only sang about it, the events took place around 1250B.C. and weren't written down untill 700B.C.(contrast that with the N.T. and there's no comparison). How do you figure that there was no comparison? Because Homer sang of an historic event and Luke wrote about a fictional one? Niether of them claim to have been there when it happened.
Weather his accuracy in topographic and geographic matters gives validilty to the Greek gods and goddess's I suppose a good photograph of the top of Mt. Olympus would settle that question. Since the bible tells us that Heaven is on the other side of the "firmament," and that the clouds are the dust kicked up by gods sandals, then a snap shot taken from a window in the ISS should like wise settle this debate.
If you are going to claim some supernatural loop-hole for this lack of "streets paved with gold" floating in the sky--I'm sure the same excuse could be used by the sons of Zeus. But I should point out that THIS IS THE CRITERIA THAT YOU SET UP FOR DETERMINING THE TRUTH. You think that it's wrong when applied to pagan gods but not to christian gods?
With Christianty its always been habeus courpus just show us the body and we will pack up and shut up. We don't even need the body. Any sort of proof at all would be fine.
But you have none.
Nothing.
Zero.
As far as the existence of the one eye cyclops I'll have to run that by Art Bell's website and see what info i get, I see… a one eyed giant-from somebody else's religion is stupid. But a ressurected magician from your religion is not. It's funny because you have exactly the same amount of evidence that Jesus existed as you do that Polyphides (the Cyclops) did.
Nothing.
perhaps he's what you evolutionist have been looking for...an undisputed transitional form. I am not arguing that there were Cyclops-only that the criteria of truth that you apply to Jesus can be applied to Cyclops. And since we know that there were never any Cyclops we can be sure that the criteria that you have set up is false. Get it? You, my friend, are an anti-intellectual. You have the combined knowledge of the ages laid out before you. With the internet you needn't even leave your chair to benefit from it. But you would rather wallow in superstition and ignorance. You rail against "evolutionists" but you don't even know what an evolutionist is. (There are none here, by the way, but many who would be happy to defend them.) You decry the science of Evolution but you don't even know what it is. You don't know what Science is. You don't even know that we have literally tons of transitional fossils and that you, yourself, are a transitional form.
Mencken expressed the disgust I feel, seventy six years ago, better than I can now.
quote:
Homo Neanderthalensis by H.L. Mencken
(The Baltimore Evening Sun, June 29, 1925)
I
Such obscenities as the forthcoming trial of the Tennessee evolutionist, if they serve no other purpose, at least call attention dramatically to the fact that enlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed. It is common to assume that human progress affects everyone -- that even the dullest man, in these bright days, knows more than any man of, say, the Eighteenth Century, and is far more civilized. This assumption is quite erroneous. The men of the educated minority, no doubt, know more than their predecessors, and of some of them, perhaps, it may be said that they are more civilized -- though I should not like to be put to giving names -- but the great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history. They are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble. They know little if anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the slightest sign of a natural desire among them to increase their knowledge.
Such immortal vermin, true enough, get their share of the fruits of human progress, and so they may be said, in a way, to have their part in it. The most ignorant man, when he is ill, may enjoy whatever boons and usufructs modern medicine may offer -- that is, provided he is too poor to choose his own doctor. He is free, if he wants to, to take a bath. The literature of the world is at his disposal in public libraries. He may look at works of art. He may hear good music. He has at hand a thousand devices for making life less wearisome and more tolerable: the telephone, railroads, bichloride tablets, newspapers, sewers, correspondence schools, delicatessen. But he had no more to do with bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the air.
On the contrary, he is generally against them, and sometimes with immense violence. Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power. They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their hands.
II
The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life. Certainly it cannot have gone unnoticed that their membership is recruited, in the overwhelming main, from the lower orders -- that no man of any education or other human dignity belongs to them. What they propose to do, at bottom and in brief, is to make the superior man infamous -- by mere abuse if it is sufficient, and if it is not, then by law.
Such organizations, of course, must have leaders; there must be men in them whose ignorance and imbecility are measurably less abject than the ignorance and imbecility of the average. These super-C |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 14:50:38 [Permalink]
|
Hey I like Betthoven
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 01:17:08 [Permalink]
|
quote: Hey I like Betthoven
Aren't science and technology wonderful, that you should be able to listen to Beethoven in your home or car rather than having to travel to a theater and purchase tickets. I personally like the balcony - but that's me.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 05:03:40 [Permalink]
|
Amen,and to think that he was deaf.According to Mecken and Slater I'm just one of the red neck "ignoble... imortal vermin"so I just get sixpack, some pork rinds,and head on down to the Piggly Wiggly and blast Beethoven's 9th from singel speaker 1956 Ford pickup
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 05:27:53 [Permalink]
|
quote: Amen,and to think that he was deaf.According to Mecken and Slater I'm just one of the red neck "ignoble... imortal vermin"so I just get sixpack, some pork rinds,and head on down to the Piggly Wiggly and blast Beethoven's 9th from singel speaker 1956 Ford pickup
Mencken lived during a time when people did not have cars in abundance. There were not radios in every house. Most people to have heard of or listened to Beethoven were required to travel to a theater to hear a symphonic piece. This would be virtually impossible for many. Though you must admit, there are those who know nothing and science and commit themselves to ignorance, used here to define the refusal to educate onesself regarding subjects with which they are unfamiliar.
The gist of the argument is this: many would prefer to believe in the sky monster than in what would be explained by science. They are seeming incapable of understanding or pursuing the knowledge of any idea when it is easier to explain by faith alone.
If you are intelligent (I have no means by which to judge outside you arguments for theism) then you should be able to conceive and understand the explaination put forth by science. In which you have failed. Additionally, you fail to understand the dichotomy of the scientific method [science] and religion.
Religion relies upon authoritarian bullying and belief, where science relies upon critical review by peers to refute, redefine, or accept an hypothesis, in addition, science requires that when a better system/explaination is reviewed and accepted that the outmoded be abandoned. Though much of science relies upon what has gone before and therefore consistently builds upon itself, especially (as is the case with evolution) where the hypothesis is perhaps the most correct and withstands the test of time.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 14:16:57 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry for bringing up the evolution joke(it was just that a JOKE).We need to stick to the topic of the Evidence for the Existence Jesus.Again my apologies.
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 15:59:23 [Permalink]
|
quote: Mencken lived during a time when people did not have cars in abundance. There were not radios in every house. Most people to have heard of or listened to Beethoven were required to travel to a theater to hear a symphonic piece. This would be virtually impossible for many. ...
Henry Louis Mencken lived from 1880 to 1956. Cars had been around for a long, long time before his death. Radios, television sets, tape recorders were in use for a long, long time, and radios and television had been carrying symphony orchestra performances for years and years by the time of his death. However, much of the popular music which was around when Mencken was alive has *gone the way of the Dodo*, while the music of Handel, Haydn, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Prokofieff, Stravinsky, Ives, et al. continues to bring crowds to symphony orchestra concerts and is supported by heavy endowments. The music of Beethoven, et al., lives on, while popular music usually dies a slow death from disuse.
Anybody with a radio can tune into symphony orchestra concerts. They can buy CDs and tapes of symphony orchestra (and chamber music) concerts. H.L. Mencken wrote: *Nobody ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American Public.* He was very, very right about that one. However, he made money hand over fist from that knowledge by his pandering to the public taste.
Great music will continue to be available to the people who desire to listen to it. The disks and tapes of popular music often end up forgotten in landfills. To each his/her own...
ljbrs
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 16:23:42 [Permalink]
|
quote: As far as the the other dying and rising "gods" of the mystery religions they were sworn to secrecy the exact opposite of the of the apostles who boldly proclaimed that Jesus had risen in front of hostile witnesses.
==========
That's just blatant nonsense. Of all the saviors that I mentioned only Dionysos was at the center of a "mystery cult."
... Soon there would be a movement to put it down, and Baptist clergymen would range the land denouncing it, and in the end some poor musician, taken in the un-American act of playing it, would be put on trial before a jury of Ku Kluxers, and railroaded to the calaboose.
Slater:
Thank you for the wonderful post, as usual. I always liked H.L. Mencken. I particularly liked his *Memorial Service* which is a hum dinger. I am certain that you must have read it. If not, there are sites on the web which have it. Somewhere (on one of my other sites) I have saved it.
Again, thank you.
ljbrs
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 21:12:07 [Permalink]
|
ljbrs,
maybe I should have made myself more clear. Mencken did live during the time when cars became prevalent on the roads. However, this quote is from when they were not all that popular or in great supply.
quote: Homo Neanderthalensis by H.L. Mencken
(The Baltimore Evening Sun, June 29, 1925)
Even so, the majority of people did not have cars for the majority of his life - it would have been during the last ten years or so that he lived that cars were owned by the majority of the citizenry.
Oops! Forgot the radio thing. Which did work it's way into the American home during the depression and 40s - we musn't forget Franklins *Fireside Chats*.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 11/03/2001 21:15:00 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 04:05:03 [Permalink]
|
quote: They put the formation of the NT in that time period primarily due to archaeological and textual evidence. To say that the time set is based on archaeological evidence is misleading. It implies that there is physical evidence to support the claim. To the best of my knowledge there is only a fragment of one page from Mark surviving that dates from slightly before Eusebius and his merry pranksters. Everything else is newer. Textual evidence is even slipperier. It sounds like it couldn't have been written before 70 CE becomes changed, in the hands of biblical scholars, to it was written in 70 CE. This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when I say "assumptions." Hell, a historic Jesus is an assumption. That is probably the one thing that the majority of contemporary bible scholars actually are in agreement on--Jesus' existence. But without any proof--therefore they are assuming the very foundation that all of their other arguments are based on. Not a good way to build a case.
I'd love to see you make the case that
quote: Articles and book excerpts used in and referred to on Issues, Etc.
The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery
An excerpt from Evidence for Faith Chapter 6, Part 2
EXISTENTIAL, BLIND "LEAPS OF FAITH" can be and often are suicide jumps, with no criteria of truth available before the leap is made. But suppose the truth of a religious claim did not depend upon an unverifiable, subjectivistic leap of faith? What if a revelational truth-claim did not turn on questions of theology and religious philosophy-on any kind of esoteric, fideistic method available only to those who are already "true believers"-but on the very reasoning employed in the law to determine questions of fact?
The historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims of all other world religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of testability. Eastern faiths and Islam, to take familiar examples, ask the uncommitted seeker to discover their truth experientially: the faith-experience will be self-validating. Unhappily, as analytical philosopher Kai Nielsen and others have rigorously shown, a subjective faith-experience is logically incapable of "validating God-talk"-including the alleged absolutes about which the god in question does the talking. Christianity, on the other hand, declares that the truth of its absolute claims rests squarely on certain historical facts, open to ordinary investigation. These facts relate essentially to the man Jesus, His presentation of Himself as God in human flesh, and His resurrection from the dead as proof of His deity.
quote: The speculation that the Gospel records were "faked" some three hundred years after the events described in them (a viewpoint gratuitously proffered by Professor Trevor-Roper) is dismissed by Lord Chancellor Hailsham, England's highest ranking legal luminary, with an apt lawyer's illustration.
[What] renders the argument invalid is a fact about fakes of all kinds which I learned myself in the course of a case I did in which there was in question the authenticity of a painting purporting to be by, and to be signed by, Modigliani. This painting, as the result of my Advice on Evidence, was shown to be a fake by X-ray evidence. But in the course of my researches I was supplied by my instructing solicitor with a considerable bibliography concerning |
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2001 : 20:43:50 [Permalink]
|
Just did the poll, my two cents worth (Thank Kent Brockman) is that he dis exist however he was just a normal man who had a legend created around him. As is most myths i believe.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2001 : 21:54:46 [Permalink]
|
Very profound Geez,where did you get your "privet pipeline" to ultimate reality that you KNOW whats happened in the past without investigating it
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2001 : 22:18:37 [Permalink]
|
As I was saying, most myths are centred around an actual person, I do believe that he existed, however I don't believe all of the magical things he was supposed to have done. I don't have a magical pipeline back to the past...however I am allowed to have an opinion about anything I want. Of course I don't know what really happened, however I have read a fair bit about Palestinian history (my Mum was born in what was then Palestine, therefore my interest) so am I not able to make my own deductions about this. I never said I KNEW what happened.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin
Edited by - gezzam on 11/12/2001 22:25:02 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2001 : 22:42:10 [Permalink]
|
Darwin, such a statement is highly ironic coming from you.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
|
|
|