NationStates Jolt Archive

I presented a set of criteria.

You did nothing with those criteria - the only person who has hunted up counter-arguments... is me.

'Religious experiences' conform to those criteria.

You've done nothing to show that 'religious experiences' DON'T conform to those criteria.

Seriously - what you're doing here is like the scene in "Red Dwarf" where the crew encounters the long-dead-and-skeletal remains on another ship, and when they mention the whole 'being dead' thing, are asked 'are you a doctor?'
Well, if the dead thing you are referring to is your argument...maybe.

I notice that, in the same post in which you include Poli of not being properly responsive, you totally ignore her challenges to you.* I happen to remember that she did say things exactly the way she says she did. Do you deny that or do you agree to it?

(*I guess you got bored doing that with me?)

Your first paragraph is a strawman


No, it isn't.

Perhaps you don't know what a strawman actually is?


Your challgenge is crap as well


Your inability to satisfy it doesn't make it crap.


...it contains no fact but plenty of negative characterizations of religion and religious people.


One.

If you think it is negative.

And it wasn't MY characterisation.


I have explained over and over that your characterization of religous people as delusional WHICH YOU STATED MANY TIMES IN THIS THREAD...


Which you have failed to show, even when directly challeneged.


I have already explained at length that the fact that you have failed to show any factual evidence


I showed one source, and I notice that another poster posted at least one more.


and then your insistance on fudging and blurring that criterion with your "philosophy"


My 'philosophy' is an entirely different matter.

My philosophy is why I admit that someone like me also has a 50/50 chance of being deluded.


...also indicate that you are motivated to keep religion in a negative light


I haven't tried to put religion in a negative light.


so that you can continue to call it delusional.


I didn't actually call it delusional either.


I say that again. I say that your statements about religious people are bigoted.


You keep saying that. And you keep failing to show any actual evidence.


I say that your own arguments in this thread -- and nowhere else -- illustrate your bias against religious people and the extent to which you are willing construct bogus arguments to express that bias. All of your words and all of mine are in the thread.


They are indeed.

Which makes me wonder why you keep trying to pretend I've done things I haven't done.


That is my case. I rest my case. Anyone else who wants to read the thread and judge whether I'm right or wrong about your arguments may do so.


Ah, playing to the audience again.


EDIT: This makes me quite unhappy. I used to be able to rely on you at least for good arguments, but in recent weeks, your arguments in religion threads have not only become increasingly hostile and closed-minded, but also increasingly loaded with poor reasoning and logical fallacies.


My arguments have not been hostile or closed-minded. In this thread, or others.

Ironically, I was thinking much the same. This is the second time I've seen you deal with this topic in this way.


In this thread, you have fudged,


This part is untrue.


if not moved, your goalposts,


This part is untrue.


engaged in strawman attacks,


This part is not only untrue, but somewhat hypocritical.


bogus appeal to authority,


Providing sources when challenged is not an appeal to authority.

You can debate the quality and fitness of my sources... but don't pretend it was a logical fallacy.

<snip the denial>
It ain't just a river in Egypt, you know.

I made my case. You made yours. I say yours failed, and mine stands. You say different. Now I'm content to just be the appreciative audience to the spectacle of you failing the same way with the same tactics against other posters.

Also, you can save your energy and quit telling me about all the things you didn't do, and that I did, and how you didn't post any logical fallacy, etc. I not only made my statements, I explained them. Your denials do not actually disprove my explanations, so I stand by them.

Now, I'm far more interested in watching you fail to misrepresent Poli's arguments and fail at putting words into her mouth.

Well, if the dead thing you are referring to is your argument...maybe.

I notice that, in the same post in which you include Poli of not being properly responsive, you totally ignore her challenges to you.* I happen to remember that she did say things exactly the way she says she did. Do you deny that or do you agree to it?

(*I guess you got bored doing that with me?)

Neither you nor Poli are actually willing to debate it.

You, personally, have gone out of your way to excuse why you are not backing up the claims you make about me. You have both attributed things to me I didn't say, and causes I deny. I feel no real need to answer challenges in a one-sided exchange.

Also - if you re-read it, I think you'll find that what I was saying to Poli was that her 'diagnosis to symptoms' conspiracy theory scenario falls down on the fact that the symptoms here DO fit the criteria for a diagnosis. So - it's not a 'conspiracy' unless we're discussing that 'well known bias' of reality.

I must say, it is disconcerting, at the very least, to see a formerly intelligent, rational, and respected poster find his way on to my ignore list.

I made my case. You made yours.


And then you responded to versions of mine that I didn't make.


Also, you can save your energy and quit telling me about all the things you didn't do,


I'll stop pointing out your... blurring of the truth... when you stop doing it.


...and that I did, and how you didn't post any logical fallacy, etc. I not only made my statements, I explained them.


Yes. And when asked for evidence, you failed, and then obfuscated.


Your denials do not actually disprove my explanations, so I stand by them.


You haven't proved your explanations.

Stand by them all you like.

Neither you nor Poli are actually willing to debate it.
More denial. We posted very clear arguments that expressed not only our own positions on the topic but also how we were responding to your words and why we were responding that way. You just seem to think that pretending that never happened is going to get you somewhere, apparently.

You, personally, have gone out of your way to excuse why you are not backing up the claims you make about me. You have both attributed things to me I didn't say, and causes I deny. I feel no real need to answer challenges in a one-sided exchange.
Not true. I did not have to back up any claims I made about you because I never made any claims about you, but only about your arguments and behavior in this thread, and I have explained that several times in this thread. Pretending that never happened is not helping you, either.

Also - if you re-read it, I think you'll find that what I was saying to Poli was that her 'diagnosis to symptoms' conspiracy theory scenario falls down on the fact that the symptoms here DO fit the criteria for a diagnosis. So - it's not a 'conspiracy' unless we're discussing that 'well known bias' of reality.
No, actually, I don't see that. I see just what she saw -- you laying the foundation for a claim that, just because the vast majority of actual doctors and psychiatrists do not consider religious belief to be a delusion or a symptom of a delusional state, you should still get to claim that it's legitimate for you to claim that religion can be diagnosed as a delusion. Only it can't. She explained why. Your argument fails not because your opponents are uncooperative but because your argument is bogus.

You haven't proved your explanations.

Stand by them all you like.
You did that for me. Thanks.

I must say, it is disconcerting, at the very least, to see a formerly intelligent, rational, and respected poster find his way on to my ignore list.

Is this is a reference to me?

I'm fairly intelligent, I'm rational. Whether I'm 'respected' or not is not mine to say, nor my concern.

If you're going to ignore me, feel free - but threatening it is bad form.

I think both Mur and Poli failed to enter into this as a debate at all, really. I think they both took the thing as an insult - because they identify with the 'religious experience' scenario (I assume). I'm not sure if that applies to you, or not - I'm not aware of your position on the 'religious/not-religious scale.

If so, I don't hold it against any of you. You can't be forced to enter into debates.

Similarly, I'll not be offended if you feel you have to put me on your ignore list.

More denial. We posted very clear arguments that expressed not only our own positions on the topic...

Sorry, I got this far and...

Are you really under the impression that it was YOUR position I felt you were misrepresenting?

Sorry, I got this far and...

Are you really under the impression that it was YOUR position I felt you were misrepresenting?
And this is why your argument is failing. You do not read the whole of what other people say. You pounce on individual phrases, out of context, but because you ignore the context, you also end up arguing about something that is completely divorced from both what the other person was saying and also from the topic you claim you are trying to debate. You hijack yourself.

And just in case you can't figure it out from the above, no, that is not what I thought.

I think NA is right. You're not the GnI I cyber-knew for a long time. Not on this topic. I would not have thought it would be physically possible for you to post such weak and erroneous arguments.

And this is why your argument is failing.

No, my 'argument is failing' because (I believe) you've never actually tried to address it, for which I blame myself. Once it became clear that you weren't going to, perhaps I should have dropped it.

You have my apologies.

I presented a set of criteria.

You did nothing with those criteria - the only person who has hunted up counter-arguments... is me.

'Religious experiences' conform to those criteria.

You've done nothing to show that 'religious experiences' DON'T conform to those criteria.

Seriously - what you're doing here is like the scene in "Red Dwarf" where the crew encounters the long-dead-and-skeletal remains on another ship, and when they mention the whole 'being dead' thing, are asked 'are you a doctor?'

I like how you ignored everything I just said. It was cute.

But sure, I'll give you an example. Here are the diagnostic criteria for delusions:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Here is an example of a religious experience I had:

I am a choral singer. I love choral singing because it makes me a small cog in a machine creating something greater than myself. On one occasion, performing Mozart's Requiem (specifically the Lacrimosa, if it matters), the choir I was in nailed it to a degree that was breathtaking. At the end of that movement, literally a third of the 80-person choir had tears streaming down our faces, including me. In that moment of transcendent beauty created by dozens of people working as individuals and yet as one coherent whole, it felt to me as if god him/her/itself was listening and approved.

So prove to me that this experience that I have just related is "implausible, bizarre, or patently untrue." Prove that it didn't really happen, and that I would resist that proof. And prove that I have "absolute conviction" that what I experienced was correctly termed "god." (I don't.)

Unless you can do those things, I suggest you stop making your patently nonsensical argument.

I like how you ignored everything I just said. It was cute.

But sure, I'll give you an example. Here are the diagnostic criteria for delusions:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Here is an example of a religious experience I had:

I am a choral singer. I love choral singing because it makes me a small cog in a machine creating something greater than myself. On one occasion, performing Mozart's Requiem (specifically the Lacrimosa, if it matters), the choir I was in nailed it to a degree that was breathtaking. At the end of that movement, literally a third of the 80-person choir had tears streaming down our faces, including me. In that moment of transcendent beauty created by dozens of people working as individuals and yet as one coherent whole, it felt to me as if god him/her/itself was listening and approved.

So prove to me that this experience that I have just related is "implausible, bizarre, or patently untrue." Prove that it didn't really happen, and that I would resist that proof. And prove that I have "absolute conviction" that what I experienced was correctly termed "god." (I don't.)

Unless you can do those things, I suggest you stop making your patently nonsensical argument.

I'm sorry to make you put the extra hours in on something that's going to get less than the reply it deserves.

I don't think this topic is going to get discussed further without people getting (more) upset.

Thank you for taking the time.

Unless you can do those things, I suggest you stop making your patently nonsensical argument.
He can't, Poli. Haven't you been keeping up? Neither you nor I have actually entered this debate at all, nor have we addressed any of his points. I suppose that is why he ignored everything you said in the same post in which he criticized you for not addressing what he said. Or something. But whatever it is, he clearly cannot stop making his patently nonsensical argument because he's all alone here. Nobody else has entered the debate and somebody has to bump the thread. I suppose.

I think both Mur and Poli failed to enter into this as a debate at all, really.

You never intended it to be a debate. You never intended to back up your position. You made some snarky backhanded comment, and then, when called on it, played the game of denial, obfuscation, and fallacy, trying to either back out of what you said, claim you never said it, or twist the definition of words around in such a convoluted fashion to try and make what you said fit into what you now try to pretend you meant.

Your statement was clear. Its meaning is clear. It's not that neither Mur, nor Poli (nor I) "failed to enter into it as a debate", but rather, all three of us, have simply not allowed you to try and get away with pretending you didn't say what you said.

You made an absolute statement, people who agree with god are delusional (or, rather, you agreed with the statement). Since then, for page upon page upon page you have been trying to weasel out of having said that, either by trying to attach conditionals such as well, they WOULD be delusional IF... or the worst kind of poisoning the well, accusing the vast majority of behavioral psychologists and psychiatrists, who don't subscribe to your little "diagnosis" as biased.

No three of us were ready to enter into it as a debate, because you never proffered one. You never tried to create one. If you just tried to say "religious experience COULD BE" a delusion, and left it the fuck alone from there, there would be no debate, because there would be no disagreement. That's, of course, a truism.

Instead you tried to split hairs, and attempt to weasel out of your own words, either through appeals to authority, evocation of expertise you don't have, heavy handed torture of the english language to try and get words to mean what you wanted, or just out and out insults. And now, rather than simply come out, clearly, consisely and go "look, this is what I was trying to say ..." you've continued on this path, and now desperately try to abandon it with a "well, we're not going to agree!" You're right, we're not going to agree, because your initial comment was bigoted, condescending, and arrogant in the extreme, and neither Poli, Mur, nor myself feel the need to let you escape that fact.

There's been no debate because you never attempted to create one. You just made one stupid comment and, instead of simply admitting you made it, and owning up to it, or simply clarifying your words, you've tried for pages upon pages to try and convince us what you said was correct. The failure to create a debate is yours, and yours alone. Your behavior has been nothing better than a common troll. You should be ashamed, you're better than that.

How do Christians, especially the pro-life ones, define it btw (genuine interest) ? When does the soul depart ?

Depends on the culture. In some hospitals they will generally wait up to 3 hours for the soul to pass on. Kind of cool. Here there is a wide variety of answers. The soul can remain on earth for some time before departing to the great beyond. Hence the reason you may have heard about ghost, apparitions, poltergeist.

It is truly a shame that this thread devolved to this sort of madness. It started well enough with very, very good debating, and a genuine admission of positions. But since then, GnI and Murav have taken this topic on a joyride as they debate debating and who the hell knows what. At this point, I doubt that, assuming He exists, even God knows what they went off on.


Can we somehow, please either get back to a logical, reasonable debate, or just call this thread dead?

Agreed

I like how you ignored everything I just said. It was cute.

But sure, I'll give you an example. Here are the diagnostic criteria for delusions:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Here is an example of a religious experience I had:

I am a choral singer. I love choral singing because it makes me a small cog in a machine creating something greater than myself. On one occasion, performing Mozart's Requiem (specifically the Lacrimosa, if it matters), the choir I was in nailed it to a degree that was breathtaking. At the end of that movement, literally a third of the 80-person choir had tears streaming down our faces, including me. In that moment of transcendent beauty created by dozens of people working as individuals and yet as one coherent whole, it felt to me as if god him/her/itself was listening and approved.

So prove to me that this experience that I have just related is "implausible, bizarre, or patently untrue." Prove that it didn't really happen, and that I would resist that proof. And prove that I have "absolute conviction" that what I experienced was correctly termed "god." (I don't.)

Unless you can do those things, I suggest you stop making your patently nonsensical argument.

Wow that is an awesome story. Exactly what we want to hear!

If it is a delusional, it is a mass delusion of some sort, such as humans have never seen before. It would be rare that this delusion would affect/effect the number of people it did.

With the negative argument that quickly descends into infinite recursion. Show me proof, show me proof.

The positive side is more difficult to argue it deals with feeling, perceptions, stories, legends, miracles by definition all difficult to prove.


Both side argued very well. Several near pins. Both sides seemed to have the other backed into corners, only to escape. I think you both are running out of ammunition.


For what it is worth I say draw and I am biased for the positive side.

Both sides have impressed me but I am easily impressed as I am religious. Now each you switch chairs. Prosecutor with Defense. Argue the others position. That would be the bomb.

Or not. Let's just call this one done and over.

well...1) my nuclear family was not religious. my mother believes in God (asked her when i was 16 i think) but I'm definitely not sure about her viewpoint on the 'Jesus is God' thing. I do believe in the existence of God because of many occurrences that I can't explain except by ...divine intervention. not necessarily amazing things, just every day things. I believe in Christ as the son of God because a) I believe i have the Spirit and, according to the Bible, I couldn't have it without His blessing...or intervention...whatever hehe. and b) that same Bible says I must believe that to be 'saved'. 2)I am a christian now, although not 'religious' (i.e. part of any denomination), due to The Spirit and the occurrences (and the fact that, since I started praying and thanking God for things, life's...issues...have become more understandable and my own moral progression has become enhanced). *morality being defined by the ...western... christian definition hehe* 3) n/aFar out. I can't remember, although i should probably look .... perhaps the first post "i" ever made was also on a religious-like thread.

I shouldn't have read it.

I left it. I went home. But I admit, I was curious. I started at Straughns reply, and worked back through Truly Blessed, and I guess I should have stopped as soon as I saw the name.

But, alas, I saw it, started interacting with it... and well, too late, I guess. At least I think I managed to rise above the really obvious bait.

You never intended it to be a debate. You never intended to back up your position. You made some snarky backhanded comment,


No, I didn't.


... and then, when called on it, played the game of denial, obfuscation, and fallacy, trying to either back out of what you said, claim you never said it,
...or twist the definition of words around in such a convoluted fashion to try and make what you said fit into what you now try to pretend you meant.


I'd really hoped this was going to be Mur's pony, and that, once she stopped spanking it, it would stay dead.

I didn't say it.

Saying I didn't say it is not weaseling, twisting, fudging or pretending.


You made an absolute statement, people who agree with god are delusional


No, I totally didn't.


No three of us were ready to enter into it as a debate, because you never proffered one. You never tried to create one. If you just tried to say "religious experience COULD BE" a delusion, and left it the fuck alone from there, there would be no debate, because there would be no disagreement. That's, of course, a truism.


Be serious. How many threads on this forum have titles like "I think Democrats are hypcritical"... and how many of them are "Dems Lie!!!" I don't have to dot the i's and cross the t's and send gardenparty invitations for it to be a debate.

Someone presented something I found interesting, but the wrote it off. I expressed some less dissatisfaction with the proposal than they had. Enter debate.

If y'all failed to get with the spirit of the thing at that point, and chose instead to invent arguments for me... well, I apologised already for dragging that sideshow on for so long.


Instead you tried to split hairs, and attempt to weasel out of your own words,


Saying 'Dude, I didn't say that' isn't weaseling.

Considering I didn't say 'that', it's not 'my own words' even if it WAS weaseling.


There's been no debate because you never attempted to create one. You just made one stupid comment and, instead of simply admitting you made it, and owning up to it, or simply clarifying your words, you've tried for pages upon pages to try and convince us what you said was correct.

No, actually. Mostly, I've tried to point out that what YOU said I said... wasn't what I said.

I shouldn't have read it.

I left it. I went home. But I admit, I was curious. I started at Straughns reply
Mea culpa? :(

I really haven't had much to do with this thread. Unusual, i know, but i've got little dude issues and such lately.

Quite a bit going on on this one, huh?

Mea culpa? :(

I really haven't had much to do with this thread. Unusual, i know, but i've got little dude issues and such lately.

Quite a bit going on on this one, huh?

Not any more. I'm trying to leave it.

You're not culpable, you were just the last post on the page, and I tend to read you first... so I worked my way back up the page.

Been there with the little dude issues - not in duplicate though... although the latter two were only like.. a year apart.

You're not culpable, you were just the last post on the page, and I tend to read you first... so I worked my way back up the page.You should probably move over to our region then, no? ;)
I have too much catching up to do on this thread to be of much use. I figured the TCMS addie might have helped, but it was of course graciously ignored.

Been there with the little dude issues - not in duplicate though... although the latter two were only like.. a year apart.
We're very, very close to the first series of tests to determine just how the fuck, exactly, one of the little dudes literally has almost no need for sleep. I am *not* kidding.

You should probably move over to our region then, no? ;)


I'm already considering it. You used underhanded temptations. :)


I have too much catching up to do on this thread to be of much use. I figured the TCMS addie might have helped, but it was of course graciously ignored.


Not by all. It parallels an article I read in some other 'science-y' journal a while back, so it refers to the same source I was talking about early in the discussion.

It's a shame. There was actually some promising material as well. But for the most part, it just couldn't get it's wheels up.


We're very, very close to the first series of tests to determine just how the fuck, exactly, one of the little dudes literally has almost no need for sleep. I am *not* kidding.

Our teensiest one hardly slept in her first year... but she settled down. Hopefully it's something like that. I watched a program just a few days about... pressure on the base of the brain, I think?... that can stop teensies from sleeping. I'm sending karmically positive wishes your way.

Okay, that's it, I have found solid, absolute, 100% undeniable proof that there is a God, that he is benevolent, and that he will guide us to a better and glorious world! (http://www.holytaco.com/if-i-die-bacon-related-death-id-it-be-because)

I'm already considering it. You used underhanded temptations. :) Often, yes. Kinda my shtick, really. But when i'm overt, i tend to send good, clean minded, wholesome folk like Vetalia An argument for another thread no doubt into reactions like that one he had the other day.

Not by all. It parallels an article I read in some other 'science-y' journal a while back, so it refers to the same source I was talking about early in the discussion.

It's a shame. There was actually some promising material as well. But for the most part, it just couldn't get it's wheels up.I've been following that for about 5 years now, after a few good articles in some sci journals i blabbed at my dad while we were driving through the high grainy hills of cattle mutilation/new Noah's Ark territory.

Our teensiest one hardly slept in her first year... but she settled down. Hopefully it's something like that. I watched a program just a few days about... pressure on the base of the brain, I think?... that can stop teensies from sleeping.Man, i hope he doesn't have that. They're really really healthy and VERY strong. It's just that one of the little dudes gets about 1/8 the amount of sleep he's actually supposed to get at his age. He fights it EVERY time, too.
I'm sending karmically positive wishes your way.Thank you, mon capitan. *bows*
I'm hoping perhaps he got whatever mutation i carry that allows me to go with so little sleep. Not likely, but it's better than the alternative.

i regard christianity as little as i possibly can. but when i do, it is as neither greater nor lesser then any other form of organized belief. well maybe a little less, along with the very few other beliefs it shares the same problem with, on account of its fanatical chauvinism.

i DO believe in 'faith', in the sense of existence not being limited by knowledge. just not faith IN pretending to know what is not known.

It is truly a shame that this thread devolved to this sort of madness. It started well enough with very, very good debating, and a genuine admission of positions. But since then, GnI and Murav have taken this topic on a joyride as they debate debating and who the hell knows what. At this point, I doubt that, assuming He exists, even God knows what they went off on.


Can we somehow, please either get back to a logical, reasonable debate, or just call this thread dead?
I refuse absolutely to take the blame for this. I was the one asking people to be mindful of their manners in order to avoid this very kind of thing. GnI was the one who insisted on making a whole argument about how all religious people are delusional. I am not going to apologize for not letting him get away with that. But, hey, the thread made it to a good number of pages before he decided that he'd rather fight than be courteous.

GnI was the one who insisted on making a whole argument about how all religious people are delusional.

I made a reply to someone else that simply stated I didn't have a problem with one of the 'sins' they were addressing.

You argued.

You know, if you really want to play the blame game. I'd left it.

Man, i hope he doesn't have that.


Moi, aussi, mon ami.

Is he having other 'symptoms'? The kid I was watching about the other day... it was causing this insane rage. All the time.

If he's not getting other side-effects, maybe he just doesn't need much sleep?


They're really really healthy and VERY strong. It's just that one of the little dudes gets about 1/8 the amount of sleep he's actually supposed to get at his age. He fights it EVERY time, too.


Ah... fighting it isn't, from what I can tell, all that unusual.


Thank you, mon capitan. *bows*
I'm hoping perhaps he got whatever mutation i carry that allows me to go with so little sleep. Not likely, but it's better than the alternative.

When I was in my twenties, I lived on an hour of sleep, quite often. In my teens to my mid-twenties, I almost never slept more than 4 hours. My lil boy sleeps like I used to - he'll sleep twice a day for four hours each, maybe.

I made a reply to someone else that simply stated I didn't have a problem with one of the 'sins' they were addressing.

You argued.

You know, if you really want to play the blame game. I'd left it.
Doesn't look it to me, based on your post above. But hey, if you're ready to make this into a childrearing thread with Straughn instead, I'm sure everyone, including me, will appreciate that.

For myself, to refer back to the actual topic of the thread:

1) It seems there are four major groups of people who place themselves in relation to Christianity -- those who are Christians; those who were Christians but gave it up because it stopped being meaningful to them; those who never were Christians because they are not religious; and those who were never Christians because they were some other religion and never gave Christianity much thought. I fall into the fourth category.

2) Aside from those major groups, it seems there are a few small groups who either have a very strong attachment to Christianity and feel the need to talk about it regardless of the conversational circumstances, or who have a very strong aversion to Christianity, or religion in general, and feel the need to talk about that, too, regardless of the conversational circumstances.

That's what I've learned from this thread.

2) Aside from those major groups, it seems there are a few small groups who either have a very strong attachment to Christianity and feel the need to talk about it regardless of the conversational circumstances, or who have a very strong aversion to Christianity, or religion in general, and feel the need to talk about that, too, regardless of the conversational circumstances.

That's what I've learned from this thread.

Considering this topic is about the relationship people have with Christianity, I wonder how you learned the bolded part from this topic ?

From other topics - certainly. But stating Christ is your life, your breath, your heart here is perfectly on topic - as is stating that one honestly believes the teachings of the Bible to approach the summum of vileness and evil and Christians to be hypocrites ;)

Of course, the conclusion is quite correct based on the whole forum- but I do not see how it follows from this topic.

Considering this topic is about the relationship people have with Christianity, I wonder how you learned the bolded part from this topic ?

From other topics - certainly. But stating Christ is your life, your breath, your heart here is perfectly on topic - as is stating that one honestly believes the teachings of the Bible to approach the summum of vileness and evil and Christians to be hypocrites ;)

Of course, the conclusion is quite correct based on the whole forum- but I do not see how it follows from this topic.
I meant more the going on and on for days at a stretch and making a big debate about it, instead of just expressing one's feelings and leaving it at that. One poster appears to feel strongly about religion, but rather than just say "In my opinion, <etc>," he felt the need to take a belligerent stance and pursue it. On the other side of the topic, another poster feels very strongly that his religion is a good thing, and he felt the need to take what struck me as a very promotional stance about it, and engage various justifications of his religion's views for a good long while. However, this particular conversation was neither promoting nor challenging religion, so that is what I meant about it being "regardless of the conversational circumstances." There are moments when there's something to wade into, and there moments when there isn't.

In any event, that is how I viewed the run of the thread and what I took away from it. Your mileage may vary.

EDIT: By the way, you should notice that I did not say that the people who feel the need to discuss their pet issues/topics/whatevers regardless of conversational circumstances were off topic. There's a reason for that.

My dad is Christian (Catholic), but I was raised Jewish. I fall into the "was always another religion" category.

I have been to church, for the following reasons:

1) My family used to go to church on Easter or Christmas - a nod to my dad. We've since stopped.
2) While living in England, I attended services at King's College Chapel a few times. I went solely to hear the choir, many of whom were my classmates.
3) After my best friend was forced to drop out of college, I went with her to church to provide emotional support.
4) My cousin was recently married in a Catholic service. I attended.

My dad is Christian (Catholic), but I was raised Jewish. I fall into the "was always another religion" category.

I have been to church, for the following reasons:

1) My family used to go to church on Easter or Christmas - a nod to my dad. We've since stopped.
2) While living in England, I attended services at King's College Chapel a few times. I went solely to hear the choir, many of whom were my classmates.
3) After my best friend was forced to drop out of college, I went with her to church to provide emotional support.
4) My cousin was recently married in a Catholic service. I attended.
I've made similar visits for special occasions. I've attended Christmas services at a Lutheran church where a friend of mine was in the choir, and it was part of a holiday event/dinner invitation. I went to St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC to watch part of the ritual of canonizing a saint once. I go to churches and cathedrals frequently to study art and in general just admire the buildings, the altars, etc. I've attended weddings and funerals in churches. I'm a regular visitor of picturesque graveyards around churches. I am always very interested in the rituals and customs of other religions, though I do try to stay under their radar if I know them to be particularly evangelistic. I don't like to be sales-pitched.

I sometimes wonder just how many people in the world are like that -- meaning that they can be interested in learning about a religion, or can attend a religion's services, etc, without wanting to either join or attack it. Sometimes I think think that kind of peaceful co-existence attitude must be very prevalent, or surely there would be even more conflict in the world than we see. But then the public debate about religion is so dominated by people who seem to take a "Bushian" view (all or nothing, you're either with us or against us), that I wonder who the majority really are.

I've made similar visits for special occasions. I've attended Christmas services at a Lutheran church where a friend of mine was in the choir, and it was part of a holiday event/dinner invitation. I went to St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC to watch part of the ritual of canonizing a saint once. I go to churches and cathedrals frequently to study art and in general just admire the buildings, the altars, etc. I've attended weddings and funerals in churches. I'm a regular visitor of picturesque graveyards around churches. I am always very interested in the rituals and customs of other religions, though I do try to stay under their radar if I know them to be particularly evangelistic. I don't like to be sales-pitched.

I sometimes wonder just how many people in the world are like that -- meaning that they can be interested in learning about a religion, or can attend a religion's services, etc, without wanting to either join or attack it. Sometimes I think think that kind of peaceful co-existence attitude must be very prevalent, or surely there would be even more conflict in the world than we see. But then the public debate about religion is so dominated by people who seem to take a "Bushian" view (all or nothing, you're either with us or against us), that I wonder who the majority really are.

The vocal types scare us. That, or we just don't care.

1. i was born into a christian family
2. I stay with Christianity because it gives me answers to a lot of questions i have. I have also read historic books that were not written by Christian authors and they match the Bible, historically

I have also read historic books that were not written by Christian authors and they match the Bible, historically

wait, which?

wait, which?
There've been a couple. Can't think of titles right now, but yeah, every now and then accounts in the Bible can be matched up to real history -- sometimes even legitimately. More often though, it's some guy speculating that the Flood could have happened, only his science is wrong.

I sometimes wonder just how many people in the world are like that -- meaning that they can be interested in learning about a religion, or can attend a religion's services, etc, without wanting to either join or attack it. Sometimes I think think that kind of peaceful co-existence attitude must be very prevalent, or surely there would be even more conflict in the world than we see. But then the public debate about religion is so dominated by people who seem to take a "Bushian" view (all or nothing, you're either with us or against us), that I wonder who the majority really are.

There's quite a few more than is obvious. I enjoy learning about all of that as well.

I sometimes wonder just how many people in the world are like that -- meaning that they can be interested in learning about a religion, or can attend a religion's services, etc, without wanting to either join or attack it.

When we are talking about religion in general I start out that way. However, remaining an impassionate observer is not always possible. Some religions gain respect even though I will not join them, and some religions lose respect rapidly the more I know of them. Towards the bulk however I am indifferent.

Unfortunately some religions are much bigger than others - so if "the big one" is a religion one deeply respects/despises it tends to get so much airtime you never even hear about the attitude towards others.

When we are talking about religion in general I start out that way. However, remaining an impassionate observer is not always possible. Some religions gain respect even though I will not join them, and some religions lose respect rapidly the more I know of them. Towards the bulk however I am indifferent.

Unfortunately some religions are much bigger than others - so if "the big one" is a religion one deeply respects/despises it tends to get so much airtime you never even hear about the attitude towards others.

That last part is always a shame. There's a lot to learn from all of them, not just "the big one" that we might have only a passing interest in.

wait, which?
the history channel is big on making "historical" shows about things that happened in the bible. maybe the guys that they use as sources wrote some books?

Somber and lazy? Interesting.

The flaw which is the gaping heart of the thin veneer of 'argument' you presented - is that you base this little foray on a flawed assumption.

You are not alone in this guilt - it has been reiterated several times by others, also. Your flawed assumption is that I 'object' to these religious claims, or 'object' to religious people... or some other assertion that I don't care, don't like, or don't understand... with reference to the subject.

Apparently, this is because I am open about my atheism. I can't work out any other source - since NONE of the claims is based on my behaviour.

Specific to YOUR response - you kind of base your argument on the assumption that I've never had 'religious experiences', myself.

Not only have I had 'religious experiences', but at least one of them was a topic of discussion in a thread in it's own right, right here on this forum.

And curiously - I was told I was deluded.

You have it backwards - the diagnosis of 'delusion' would be derived from the symptoms you admit.

I'm going to try something different here. I'm not going to play the 'you said that I said that you said' game.

I am not trying to win this argument. I am trying to arrive at a truth. Can we honestly claim that people who are religious are delusional?

I think we can honestly say that some are delusional. We can honestly say that all could be delusional.

I don't think we could honestly say that all religious people are delusional.

Nor, without knowing the specifics, could we say that any one religious person is definitely delusional.

...
The same basic thing happens in direct electrical stimulation - the 'experience' is generated in every test subject, but the 'flavour' varies with immersion.

No. I am sorry. It does not happen in every test subject.

Spirit Tech Eight years ago, I flew to Laurentian University in Midwestern Canada to test a gadget that some journalists called the "God machine." The device consisted of computer-controlled solenoids that fit over the skull and stimulate the brain with electromagnetic pulses. Its inventor, neuroscientist Michael Persinger, claimed that it could induce mystical experiences, including, as Wired magazine put it, visions of "Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit."

I sat in a ratty armchair in a soundproof chamber and pulled the God machine onto my head as, outside the chamber, a graduate student tapped a computer keyboard. As he bombarded my brain with electromagnetic bursts patterned after brain waves of epileptics in the throes of religious visions, I waited for God or even a minor deity or demon to appear—in vain. Persinger told me later that the device doesn't work on skeptics, implying that it "works" merely by exploiting subjects' suggestibility.

So, if it doesn't work on everyone, we have to either assume that it doesn't really work, or that it requires some sort of brain abnormality that only religious people have. Some unknown brain abnormality for which there is no evidence.

Also, this experiment has never been successfully replicated.

Mind you, this is the same neuroscientist who claimed that fault lines cause electromagnetic fields which cause hallucinations of UFOs.

It'd be an interesting (although arguably inhumane) experiment to raise a child with absolutely no exposure to any religion at all... but heavily immersed in, for example, the tale of "Cinderella"... and then see what the nature of the 'religious experience' looks like.

Why don't you just ask someone who was raised an atheist and then had one of these visions?

I'm going to try something different here. I'm not going to play the 'you said that I said that you said' game.

I am not trying to win this argument. I am trying to arrive at a truth. Can we honestly claim that people who are religious are delusional?


Oh, absolutely.

'We' could be wrong, though.


I think we can honestly say that some are delusional. We can honestly say that all could be delusional.

I don't think we could honestly say that all religious people are delusional.

Nor, without knowing the specifics, could we say that any one religious person is definitely delusional.


Rather depends. If you allow for those criteria tht I discussed earlier - the resistance to evidence to the contrary, etc... we have to pelad special exception for religion, to disqualify it. Which is why, I suspect, a lot of people have pushed for a 'normal as defined by the majority' clause.


No. I am sorry. It does not happen in every test subject.


From what I can see of the source Straughn presented, it kind of cuts off. The full article I was talking about earlier (which, as I told Straughn, seems to detail the same technology as his source) had the article writer experiencing a kind of... non-religious 'religious experience'.


So, if it doesn't work on everyone, we have to either assume that it doesn't really work, or that it requires some sort of brain abnormality that only religious people have. Some unknown brain abnormality for which there is no evidence.

Also, this experiment has never been successfully replicated.


I can't imagine there are people really lining up to throw money at it.


Why don't you just ask someone who was raised an atheist and then had one of these visions?

I don't really know how much anyone can be 'raised an Atheist'. Even if you were raised in an atheist family, you might still be immersed in religious culture. Even if you were raised in an atheist culture, you might still be raised in a religious family.

That's why I was talking - as a thought experiment - about someone raised in an actually controlled environment.

GoG, I think you're looking for "truths" that don't necessarily exist at this point. GnI's argument regarding being delusional isn't, in my opinion, actually saying that "all religious people are delusional". But it is admitting the possibility of such. Delusionality, a word I just made up, requires an absolute truth, along with people who refuse to accept that truth, i.e. the delusional.

Let's examine a very similar situation. Copernicus, when he developed his heliocentric model of the solar system, was regarded as delusional because it was widely accepted at the time that the solar system was geocentric, i.e. everything revolved around the earth. It was later proven, however, that Copernicus was right and that everyone else was actually delusional.

However, the sticky part of this scenario is that no one was truly able to be labeled as delusional until the full truth was known. This is what we're in right now in this debate. Two sides are calling each other delusional over a truth that is not known. There is evidence to go both ways, however the 100% absolute truth cannot be known yet.

In the end, one side will be delusional, one side will not be. But we cannot actually know until the truth is known. And it probably won't be known until you're dead.

In my round-about method, atheists could be delusional, religious folks could be delusional, we don't know and we might as well accept all of these things and just move on and wait till we can know.

No, GnI isn't saying that religious folk are definitely delusional.

As a footnote to this experiment that was brought up, using the whole electromagnetic stuffs, it bears a striking similarity with hypnosis, which has been shown to work only on the willing. In this regard, you can't really accept the results as accurate. If this were true, even all atheists could be coaxed to see religious visions. What do the results mean, then? I haven't a clue. But we can't accept them as denying or supporting anything.

In the end, one side will be delusional, one side will not be. But we cannot actually know until the truth is known... In my round-about method, atheists could be delusional, religious folks could be delusional,


This is something I've been saying, the whole time. Maybe not as concisely.


As a footnote to this experiment that was brought up, using the whole electromagnetic stuffs, it bears a striking similarity with hypnosis, which has been shown to work only on the willing. In this regard, you can't really accept the results as accurate. If this were true, even all atheists could be coaxed to see religious visions. What do the results mean, then? I haven't a clue. But we can't accept them as denying or supporting anything.

Not quite - if the treatment always gives a 'religious experience' to the religious, and it gives a religious-TYPE experience to the irreligious (which is why I have been trying to track the article I was referring to - where the guy talks about flashes of memories from his childhood, a kind of euphoric feeling, etc... which could be read as being an irreligious religious experience) then you can draw SOME kind of conclusion.

Not quite - if the treatment always gives a 'religious experience' to the religious, and it gives a religious-TYPE experience to the irreligious (which is why I have been trying to track the article I was referring to - where the guy talks about flashes of memories from his childhood, a kind of euphoric feeling, etc... which could be read as being an irreligious religious experience) then you can draw SOME kind of conclusion.

Well, in that scenario, then yes, you're right. I'm referring to the possibility of it giving some form of religious type experience to the religious, and none at all to the irreligious. In this sense, there could be something deeper to investigate. However, if what you say is the case, then you can definitely draw some sort of conclusion. I apologize for the confusion in my statement.

I used to be subject to intense religious visions when I was younger: a blazing circle of light that left me prostrated, deep voices uttering commandments or asking me peculiar riddles, etc. While I was in the grip of them, of course it was impossible to doubt their reality. Eventually I grew out of whatever condition I had, and stopped doing crazy things on account of my visions; but I do miss the sense of crystal certainty and the megalomaniac assurance that I was part of something very important. Whatever it is that St. Paul had, I think my condition was similar.

I used to be subject to intense religious visions when I was younger: a blazing circle of light that left me prostrated, deep voices uttering commandments or asking me peculiar riddles, etc. While I was in the grip of them, of course it was impossible to doubt their reality. Eventually I grew out of whatever condition I had, and stopped doing crazy things on account of my visions; but I do miss the sense of crystal certainty and the megalomaniac assurance that I was part of something very important. Whatever it is that St. Paul had, I think my condition was similar.

You say you "grew out of" the condition.

There's more to it than that, isn't there? You say you "did crazy things" so presumably some 'majority' of your consciousness rejected the visions, and chose not to act on them.

I'm curious.

You say you "grew out of" the condition.

There's more to it than that, isn't there? You say you "did crazy things" so presumably some 'majority' of your consciousness rejected the visions, and chose not to act on them.

I'm curious.

Perhaps by "grew out" he means he stopped receiving visions, and thus had no reason to do "crazy things"?

Perhaps by "grew out" he means he stopped receiving visions, and thus had no reason to do "crazy things"?

Sure, that's pretty much what Tmur said.

I'm curious about the causality of it though. Tmur is pretty smart, I'm sure he/she has thought about why the visions and voices stopped.

My own experience with mental illness (a term I despise btw) tells me that the reaction of others to words or deeds is crucial. Even the best intentions can produce contrary results ... delusion can be strengthened by opposition. I can't say that accepting some premise which seems ridiculous and debating with that (a friendly act, humouring your friend) always works; nor can I say that throwing your friend out of your house because they keep raving crazy shit always works. Either could be effective.

You can like someone, but hate what they believe. That's the basis of constructive debate, debate which improves the understanding of both participants. In that context, "mental illness" is a cry for help ... help in understanding, and comradeship in the battle against the unknowable. The 'delusional' person isn't satisfied with a shrug and "who can say?" They cling to an answer, however inadequate, and if you care about them and care about the question you just have to debate with them though neither of you will ever be completely persuaded.

BTW, welcome to NSG if no-one else has done you that honour. The way you rescued good points from GnI's beleaguered position was impressive. You express yourself clearly and make good points.

I don't think I ever saw your name before today (I've been on a few week's break though) though your join date is similar to mine (as Nobel Hobos.) You were mainly posting on the game forums most of that time?

Sure, that's pretty much what Tmur said.

I'm curious about the causality of it though. Tmur is pretty smart, I'm sure he/she has thought about why the visions and voices stopped.

My own experience with mental illness (a term I despise btw) tells me that the reaction of others to words or deeds is crucial. Even the best intentions can produce contrary results ... delusion can be strengthened by opposition. I can't say that accepting some premise which seems ridiculous and debating with that (a friendly act, humouring your friend) always works; nor can I say that throwing your friend out of your house because they keep raving crazy shit always works. Either could be effective.

You can like someone, but hate what they believe. That's the basis of constructive debate, debate which improves the understanding of both participants. In that context, "mental illness" is a cry for help ... help in understanding, and comradeship in the battle against the unknowable. The 'delusional' person isn't satisfied with a shrug and "who can say?" They cling to an answer, however inadequate, and if you care about them and care about the question you just have to debate with them though neither of you will ever be completely persuaded.

BTW, welcome to NSG if no-one else has done you that honour. The way you rescued good points from GnI's beleaguered position was impressive. You express yourself clearly and make good points.

I don't think I ever saw your name before today (I've been on a few week's break though) though your join date is similar to mine (as Nobel Hobos.) You were mainly posting on the game forums most of that time?

I'm part of the old guard up in the roleplay sections. I wander on down here from time to time to see what's up, and what the current style of debate is like. I'm also coming back from a few years of leave.

I must say, though, there seems to be a few more good debaters here than in the old days, when NSG was a constant battlefield.

Also, I'm not quite sure I caught your meaning in the first section of your post, talking about "mental illness"? What was that part in reference to? Could you elaborate, a bit?

I'm part of the old guard up in the roleplay sections. I wander on down here from time to time to see what's up, and what the current style of debate is like. I'm also coming back from a few years of leave.

I must say, though, there seems to be a few more good debaters here than in the old days, when NSG was a constant battlefield.

and truth is the first casualty of war.

Also, I'm not quite sure I caught your meaning in the first section of your post, talking about "mental illness"? What was that part in reference to? Could you elaborate, a bit?

I meant: when GnI used the term "delusion" that could only lead to one interpretation, the psychiatric one. "The religious are delusional" isn't a winnable position because defining a belief as "crazy" depends on demonstrating that the belief causes the believer to have significant difficulties relating to others.

I don't fully accept this definition of mental illness. But psychiatry is a profession and a science of sorts, and that authority isn't easily defeated in debate.

Seeing visions or talking in tongues will cause significant difficulties in relating to others ... if you are supposed to be delivering this week's sales report. On the other hand, it will go down great if the priest just sprinkled you with holy water and did a laying-on of hands. It depends on the context.

So I have a problem with definitions of mental illness which assume a context, "normal" beliefs according to the majority. And I have a problem with defining "illness" as difficulty in everyday life arising from beliefs. Both definitions are flawed: by the first, homosexuals are mentally ill (being a minority) and by the second, Charles Manson was perfectly sane when surrounded by his followers.

So I'm a step down the road from GnI trying to dismiss religious belief as mental illness. I'm trying to dismiss mental illness itself as some special case of beliefs which deserve or need to be "treated."

We're all sick, and we're all strong. We treat each other every day, with punches or kisses and slowly but steadily with the "talking cure."

I'm not sure if that answers your question. I'm a bit drunk now.

Couldn't the electrode stimulation be also the reason why we believe?


There used to be talk about the pineal gland and all that stuff like that, it was a inner eye which brought about enlightenment.

Let's face it God as an idea must exist in our brains somewhere whether we believe or not. Assuming you have ever heard about him and put any thought into the matter. Is this just accessing this memory from another method?

It would also be interesting to see what part light up when you pray through a Brain scan and all that. So we take:

Subject A: Who is a non-believer and ask him or her to pray. Same age, same culture

Subject B: Who is a believer and ask him or her to pray. Same age, same culture

The we repeat with different cultures, different sexes etc.

and truth is the first casualty of war.



I meant: when GnI used the term "delusion" that could only lead to one interpretation, the psychiatric one. "The religious are delusional" isn't a winnable position because defining a belief as "crazy" depends on demonstrating that the belief causes the believer to have significant difficulties relating to others.

I don't fully accept this definition of mental illness. But psychiatry is a profession and a science of sorts, and that authority isn't easily defeated in debate.

Seeing visions or talking in tongues will cause significant difficulties in relating to others ... if you are supposed to be delivering this week's sales report. On the other hand, it will go down great if the priest just sprinkled you with holy water and did a laying-on of hands. It depends on the context.

So I have a problem with definitions of mental illness which assume a context, "normal" beliefs according to the majority. And I have a problem with defining "illness" as difficulty in everyday life arising from beliefs. Both definitions are flawed: by the first, homosexuals are mentally ill (being a minority) and by the second, Charles Manson was perfectly sane when surrounded by his followers.

So I'm a step down the road from GnI trying to dismiss religious belief as mental illness. I'm trying to dismiss mental illness itself as some special case of beliefs which deserve or need to be "treated."

We're all sick, and we're all strong. We treat each other every day, with punches or kisses and slowly but steadily with the "talking cure."

I'm not sure if that answers your question. I'm a bit drunk now.

Interesting, very interesting. Especially that last section, starting with "We're all sick".

Do you mean that, individually, we all experience different things in different ways, thus leading us all to be a little "delusional" and by interacting with each other, we establish a collective norm?

Also, you're drunk, I'm in college. It evens out, seeing as my "sober" BAC is .05 now.

And I post whilst making/consuming nachos, which are proven to effectively lower IQ by 30 points.

GoG, I think you're looking for "truths" that don't necessarily exist at this point. GnI's argument regarding being delusional isn't, in my opinion, actually saying that "all religious people are delusional". But it is admitting the possibility of such. Delusionality, a word I just made up, requires an absolute truth, along with people who refuse to accept that truth, i.e. the delusional. ...

As a footnote to this experiment that was brought up, using the whole electromagnetic stuffs, it bears a striking similarity with hypnosis, which has been shown to work only on the willing. In this regard, you can't really accept the results as accurate. If this were true, even all atheists could be coaxed to see religious visions. What do the results mean, then? I haven't a clue. But we can't accept them as denying or supporting anything.

Yes. I got the feeling that we were all arguing the same thing (i.e. what you just said) while maintaining that the other person was claiming some other extreme which they actually weren't.

But I think we have to be clear about this word delusion. The psychitaric definition provided earlier seems inconsistent with religious experience.

Oh, absolutely.

'We' could be wrong, though.

Then you are saying that we can't claim it with certainty.

Rather depends. If you allow for those criteria tht I discussed earlier - the resistance to evidence to the contrary, etc... we have to pelad special exception for religion, to disqualify it. Which is why, I suspect, a lot of people have pushed for a 'normal as defined by the majority' clause.

It just seems a liitle unreasonable to assume delusion when there is no evidence for this claim. It seems like you are making this decision based on your faith that they are delusional, rather than the more logical choice that we simply cannot know.

From what I can see of the source Straughn presented, it kind of cuts off. The full article I was talking about earlier (which, as I told Straughn, seems to detail the same technology as his source) had the article writer experiencing a kind of... non-religious 'religious experience'.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

I think that's the one you're looking for. The part you're looking for seems to start about the middle of page 3 of the article. However, one example does not make a large enough body of data to claim anything.

I can't imagine there are people really lining up to throw money at it.

According to Wiki, it's been attempted, but not successfully.

You say you "grew out of" the condition.

There's more to it than that, isn't there?
I really don't know. It used to happen a lot, and then later, it didn't.
You say you "did crazy things" so presumably some 'majority' of your consciousness rejected the visions, and chose not to act on them.

I'm curious.
Mostly I used to send prophetic rebukes to world leaders, although when I was mad at Ayatollah Khomeini (the hostage summer of 1980) I did go so far as to go to eastern Turkey and ask for a sign for whether I should walk into Iran. I was not "the messiah" per se: I was the reincarnation of Elijah and John the Baptist; it was my job to wait for the messiah and officially anoint him, and in the meantime to intervene in Middle Eastern politics and bring about world peace.

Let's face it God as an idea must exist in our brains somewhere whether we believe or not.

Not at all. If you raised a kid on a desert island, and never mentioned God, then they would never believe in or think about God.

Not at all. If you raised a kid on a desert island, and never mentioned God, then they would never believe in or think about God.

Not entirely certain about that. Imagining superior beings is quite easy.

Of course, making up the Christian God from scratch is slightly harder. The flaming bush is far more likely. Perhaps some animal gods as well.

Not entirely certain about that. Imagining superior beings is quite easy.

Of course, making up the Christian God from scratch is slightly harder. The flaming bush is far more likely. Perhaps some animal gods as well.

I bet that the first alternative would be some kind of Sun-god.

Originally Posted by The Alma Mater View Post
Not entirely certain about that. Imagining superior beings is quite easy.

Of course, making up the Christian God from scratch is slightly harder. The flaming bush is far more likely. Perhaps some animal gods as well.



I bet that the first alternative would be some kind of Sun-god.


I suppose on a desert island. If you are up north maybe Snow or Ice the world is a lot less forgiving up North. Hence what we get with Norse myth

While the sun is kind of "malicious" at best in southern climates Mayan, Aztec. These tend to be more tranquil.

Norse you get the idea that everyday is a struggle just to survive. You have Frost Giants, trolls and dwarfs all kinds of nasty stuff.

Life descends into "you must quickly get out of life to really enjoy it". A glorious death is what Valkyries are looking for, sad in some ways.

I really don't know. It used to happen a lot, and then later, it didn't.

Mostly I used to send prophetic rebukes to world leaders, although when I was mad at Ayatollah Khomeini (the hostage summer of 1980) I did go so far as to go to eastern Turkey and ask for a sign for whether I should walk into Iran. I was not "the messiah" per se: I was the reincarnation of Elijah and John the Baptist; it was my job to wait for the messiah and officially anoint him, and in the meantime to intervene in Middle Eastern politics and bring about world peace.

What....... you were meant to be Tony Blair?

But I think we have to be clear about this word delusion. The psychitaric definition provided earlier seems inconsistent with religious experience.


Really?

In what way - it looked to me like the standard religious approach to religious experiences were a perfect match for those criteria.

Where do you think they were inconsistent?


Then you are saying that we can't claim it with certainty.


Sure.

I haven't actually said otherwise. Quite the contrary.


It just seems a liitle unreasonable to assume delusion when there is no evidence for this claim.


According to those criteria, there's plenty of evidence.


It seems like you are making this decision...


Come now. I'd abandoned this topic because I keep saying I've been misrepresented, let's not start that again.

I didn't make any decisions - I said I didn't see a big problem with the assertion being made that religion is delusion (specific wording failing me, right now), and I discussed 'evidence' that would argue for that position. I constantly pointed out that it wasn't MY position.


...based on your faith that they are delusional, rather than the more logical choice that we simply cannot know.


My faith?

I've walked this road already. The next thing you do is tell me I hate religious people... then you tell me I don't like the way religious people think, or something.

You said you were interested in getting to truth, so - let's skip all this presupposition stuff, and get to it, shall we?


As far as I can see - the logical point of view is that one 'side' is right, and one is wrong - either those who HAVE religious experiences have experienced delusion, or those who DON'T have religious experience are having some kind of delusional/anti-delusional experience. We don't know which - but we can be pretty certain that one side MUST be wrong... because there either ARE gods, or there aren't.

Based on that, I don't see a problem with the next logical step being that the 'delusion' would be the aspect of existence that is extra. We all experience the physical world, even the religious ones amongst us, but ONLY (some of) the religious ones are having these experiences. That seems a reasonable argument.

Personally - I think it's a little flawed - I thoink we ALL have those experiences from time to time. When you're just sitting there eating fries dipped in icecream with your babies, and you get that moment of pure contentment? I think that's the same thing. I just think that religious people attach different significance to it, and/or experience it differently because of their convictions.


I think that's the one you're looking for. The part you're looking for seems to start about the middle of page 3 of the article.


I'm not sure I've ever read 'wired' so maybe I saw the article replicated elsewhere, but that does ring true as being the same basic article.


However, one example does not make a large enough body of data to claim anything.


No - and as it says in the article - the fact that he went into it knowing enough to have preconceived skepticism drops flies in the opintment, too.


According to Wiki, it's been attempted, but not successfully.

As in they couldn't replicate ANY of the data? Not even the skeptic response?

Life descends into "you must quickly get out of life to really enjoy it". A glorious death is what Valkyries are looking for, sad in some ways.

Not 'sad' if they were right, though.

I bet that the first alternative would be some kind of Sun-god.

Maybe even a surfing god. *thinks about life on a desert island*

But I agree with the general point that it is just as likely that a child raised in isolation from any idea of god(s) could invent his/her own.

What....... you were meant to be Tony Blair?
Please....
I got a hostage out of Iran, and convinced an Israeli Prime Minister to resign. That's two more things than Blair has accomplished, right there.

Not 'sad' if they were right, though.

Myth
The only way to live is to die a "good" death

Christianity
When we normally believe "The only way to die is you need to live a "good" life."


Interesting.

In mythology
God[s] control and influence men and events.

In Christianity
Men controls themselves for the most part and God controls the events.

Maybe even a surfing god. *thinks about life on a desert island*

But I agree with the general point that it is just as likely that a child raised in isolation from any idea of god(s) could invent his/her own.

Yeah likely a Sea God soon after as well. I wonder if a trident would come about?

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

I think that covers the basics. Just interested in seeing what everyone says. :)


1. born and raised roman catholic. currently a cross between a catholic,a reformist catholic, agnostic and a protestant.

2. why ? because it is closest to what i believe in. CLOSEST.

3. i havnt quit yet. =) not yet. muahahahaha. still hoping to lead a inside revolution amongst as many people as possible.

I <3 Christianity.

I am <3% Christian.

I am <3% Christian.

The healthy alternative to full Christianity?

Myth
The only way to live is to die a "good" death

Christianity
When we normally believe "The only way to die is you need to live a "good" life."


Interesting.

In mythology
God[s] control and influence men and events.

In Christianity
Men controls themselves for the most part and God controls the events.

Didn't Jesus say that there was no greater love than to die for a friend?

I like the way you discard Norse gods as 'mythology', and assume it is somehow different to Christianity.

What if one were raised exclusively on a college campus?

Would that lead to their belief in a nacho god and a beer god?

Didn't Jesus say that there was no greater love than to die for a friend?

Yes he did say something to that affect.


I like the way you discard Norse gods as 'mythology', and assume it is somehow different to Christianity.

Let's see we have: Odin, Thor, Loki, Freya, Baldur, Tyr just for starters.

There is a very violent belief system at work here. You are building soldiers. Die a glorious death. Most of these God[s] could careless for you and your problems. They have better things to do like kill Giants and trolls.

Odin's warriors were beserkers, I am sure you know the myth.

Loki is the God of Mischief. He conspires against humanity and against his own kind.

On the other hand we have Christianity.

One is monotheistic the other is polytheistic.


You may be able to find people who say the spoke or interacted with some or all of the Norse Gods.



Although proof is hard to come by at this late date. Some people claim they saw a man of great importance. So important that we changed our calendar because of his death. He was real live fleshy human being. For the most part the Holy books are based on peace, the actions of their follower may not always have been.

In this case your actions whether good or bad dictate your future. Our religion tries to promote positive rules based society. Good tends to be rewarded while evil is overthrown or destroyed.


Tough to see the parallels!

Myth
The only way to live is to die a "good" death

Christianity
When we normally believe "The only way to die is you need to live a "good" life."


Interesting.

In mythology
God[s] control and influence men and events.

In Christianity
Men controls themselves for the most part and God controls the events.
You do realize that the above post means absolutely nothing, right?

Let's see we have: Odin, Thor, Loki, Freya, Baldur, Tyr just for starters.


Let's see we have: Jehovah, Adrammelech, Annamelech, Ashima, Ashtoreth, Baalberith, Baalpeor, Baalzebub, Bel, Chemosh, Dagon, Diana, Jupiter, Mercurius, Milcom, Molech, Nebo, Nergal, Nibhaz, Nisroch, Rimmon, Succoth-benoth, Tammuz, Tartak.

Shekhinah is additional and debatable. Lilith is additional and debatable.


There is a very violent belief system at work here. You are building soldiers.


""I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"


Die a glorious death.


"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."


Odin's warriors were beserkers, I am sure you know the myth.


Myth? Beserkers are not a myth.


Loki is the God of Mischief. He conspires against humanity and against his own kind.


The same arguments are made against 'satan'.


One is monotheistic the other is polytheistic.


Neither one is monotheistic.


You may be able to find people who say the spoke or interacted with some or all of the Norse Gods.


Which is all you can say for either one.


Although proof is hard to come by at this late date. Some people claim they saw a man of great importance. So important that we changed our calendar because of his death.


That's not the cause of the change of the calender. The Calender was changed because the people recording the calenders were Christians.


He was real live fleshy human being.


Unprovable. He has no greater claim to reality than Odin.

Which means he could have been a real man... but so could Odin.


For the most part the Holy books are based on peace,


"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

"He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed"

"And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless."

And that's just ONE chapter, of ONE book.


In this case your actions whether good or bad dictate your future. Our religion tries to promote positive rules based society.


The same is true of Norse religion.


Good tends to be rewarded while evil is overthrown or destroyed.


The same is true of Norse religion.


Tough to see the parallels!

Apparently. But they're there.

Truly Blessed, I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right now. You are using an argument to back your stance that can be easily, easily used against you. When you debate, think about the other person's stance, and how they can counter your own arguments before you post.

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Born and raised Presbyterian Church (USA)
Attended church faithfully
Became member of my PCUSA congregation in 8th grade
Became a Christian my junior year of high school
Just transferred membership to Presbyterian Church in America this past December (my junior year of college)

2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?

I can see my sin in my own life and see and feel my helplessness and need for salvation. I see in nature that there is a God. The Christian God makes the most sense to me and offers salvation and I'm happy to serve and worship Him.

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

N/A

Depending on which part of me I read it with, this thread could infuriate, amuse, move me deeply, bore me. I guess I could say the same about religiosity, and for the same reason-- I observe it as a byproduct of human responses to human perceptions. Most of the time, those responses are most highly marked (to me) by their betrayal of a need to be right-- a need I share, and I would guess from the evidence here that both confessing and non-confessing posters here also share it. Neither atheists, agnostics, Christians, _______ (I don't know what all of you call yourselves) seem to me to be immune.

My parents are both deeply religious Lutherans, although they both relish pushing the envelope: in the nearly-fundamentalist school where he teaches science as a quiet thorn in its side, at the primly pious and militaristic church where she, more or less a hippie in personal style, attends Bible study. Neither of them holds a literal interpretation of the Bible, yet she pounces on "evidence" in newspaper articles, journals, whatever, that prayer might be effective, that miracles are scientifically explainable and so might have been recorded as history. However, evolution makes more sense to both of them than does YEC. I was homeschooled by my mother, then attended the school where my father teaches, and after that attended a Lutheran college. All my life, I have attended Lutheran churches, and still do, though I find the version of Christianity preached in the one where I work now to be more satisfying than that preached in the church where I grew up. In college, I went through a crisis of faith involving the horrible things one finds in the Bible, which I still thought of as mandatory belief-material, and had to learn to sift what I read in it as through a document of how people over time have experienced God-- whether or not anything in that experience has broken through the need for rightness and perhaps even domination-- which is how I read almost everything now (including works from other religious traditions, fairy tales, novels, history, psychology, science, etc.) It's my bent, that's all I can say.

I still confess myself to be a Christian in spite of elements of religious behavior that offend me, all of which hinge on the need to be right. I am compelled within to believe God does not need me, or anyone else, to be right before joining us in the shit we're swimming in on this earth. Who am I to say who's in or out? As one of my professors liked to put it, "Build a wall around yourself to exclude someone else, and Jesus is always on the other side of that wall." I see God in Christ as the sharing of life, and I'd rather not presume to define how other people may experience that life, though I sometimes feel called upon to help other people experience it differently-- whether as food when they are hungry, a bs detector when someone tells them God can't love them the way they are because they're gay, or as a house to live in when they've gone through a storm and been abandoned by the government. I am so small, my experiences are one drop in a sea of human experience over time, so I might be misguided. That said, I personally find it very freeing to believe what I do (freeing from guilt, self-righteousness, existential dread, what-have-you that bothers one at 3 am). Even if this is all "just" poetry, to me it's poetry that makes life worth struggling through, and I'd rather live by it (as best I can, anyhow) than by any other option I've seen out there so far, even if it sounds foolish to many, as I'm sure it must.

Yikes. This is rather a lot for a newbie like me to post-- I'd edit but I must go to sleep now!

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Mother was Catholic, and father was an atheist who never talked to me about his atheism. I went to a Catholic elementary school and went to church regularly with my mother. I considered myself a Catholic until my late teens.

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

It wasn't a choice, but a Rational Enlightenment, which was like a lightbulb turned up brighter and brighter over the years. At some point, I realized that I was an atheist. I simply couldn't find any good rational reasons to believe in Christianity any longer, and found many reasons to believe that other ways of looking at the world were more successful.

I am happy now with my naturalistic worldview that emphasizes rationality and personal flourishing in this life. I'm also a member of the Fellowship of Reason.

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Was raised as nothing really, we never really talked about it much. Went to church once a year with school, but that was about it.

2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?

When I was 18 I started reading the Bible, going to Church now and then. Never was baptized when I was young, so I decided to do that when I was 19. Hard to explain, it just seemed like the right thing, and it was for me. I don't go to church every Sunday, but I do go now and then.

I think of myself as a rational human being, and seeing that some people actually believe in Creationism makes me laugh. If you have to defend a religion through refusing real science, it's a religion, it's a cult. To actually belive that the Earth is 6000 years old, even with the massive evidence says it's obviously not.

I always feel bad about responding to an original post without reading the whole thread, but it's late and there are 56 pages.

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

I think that covers the basics. Just interested in seeing what everyone says. :)

1) I was raised in a (Protestant) Christian household and went to church all of my adolescent life. I pretty much ignored it all as a colorful blur full of pretty stories until my late teens, when I started paying attention. I went to a small (non-denominational) private Christian school for grades 4-12, although the university I now attend is secular. I am a Christian and would like to think I take that seriously even if my formal involvement in religious organizations is patchy.

2) There are a lot of reasons. As far as evidence for a lot of Biblical claims and goes, I'll be the first to say I've got a lot of unresolved doubts. Ditto for for some widely accepted parts of church doctrine. I won't insult you all with a hasty attempt at explanation for my views on those things. Deep down, though, I think it comes down to this: The people in my life who have been nourishing, accepting, friendly and tolerant have been Christians. The people in my life who have noticeably not been those things have been...not.

Nobody ever gave me a fire-and-brimstone speech (at least, not a very effective one) or attempted to scare impure thoughts out of me. Nobody ever gave me a staggeringly awkward talk about the dangers of sex. Nobody ever attempted to drill chapter and verse of absolute doctrine into me. When Christians have talked to me about those things, they've typically been willing to talk out their reasons for believing what they do without shouting or condemning me for our differences.

Maybe that's a fluke. Maybe it's because I've consistently been surrounded by Christians who are also highly educated intellectuals. Maybe the ignorant, knee-jerk fanatics are the real face of the church and I've just been insulated from them. But the fact remains that I've scarcely ever met them, and when I do - abortion protestors on campus, exchanged horror stories about Catholic schools, and so forth - it's something alien to me that my own upbringing hasn't encouraged me to pursue. I don't know about your experiences with Christians, but my own experiences have led me to believe that the norm is something I can look up to and the crazy people are the exceptions.

3) Not applicable

If I had to trust either a Christian or a Junky, and knowing nothing more about them than that, I would choose to trust the Christian.

Really?

In what way - it looked to me like the standard religious approach to religious experiences were a perfect match for those criteria.

Where do you think they were inconsistent?

Well, first of all, there are many different types of religious experience. There are full blown mystical experiences. Prayer would be another one. Singing hymns could even be considered one. Considering the vast variety of different things that could be defined as 'religious experience', I think it would be very difficult to shoehorn them into the psychological definition of delusion, from Wiki:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

But let us focus on mystical and numinous experiences, as those seem to be the most likely to be delusional.

The trouble with getting these defined as delusion is that we have no 'incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary' that it is actually a mystical or numinous experience.

According to those criteria, there's plenty of evidence.

What evidence is that?

Come now. I'd abandoned this topic because I keep saying I've been misrepresented, let's not start that again.

I didn't make any decisions - I said I didn't see a big problem with the assertion being made that religion is delusion (specific wording failing me, right now), and I discussed 'evidence' that would argue for that position. I constantly pointed out that it wasn't MY position.

My faith?

I've walked this road already. The next thing you do is tell me I hate religious people... then you tell me I don't like the way religious people think, or something.

You said you were interested in getting to truth, so - let's skip all this presupposition stuff, and get to it, shall we?

No. I didn't mean it in an insulting way. It just seems that anyone who decides to believe something without evidence is using faith instead of reason.

As far as I can see - the logical point of view is that one 'side' is right, and one is wrong - either those who HAVE religious experiences have experienced delusion, or those who DON'T have religious experience are having some kind of delusional/anti-delusional experience. We don't know which - but we can be pretty certain that one side MUST be wrong... because there either ARE gods, or there aren't.

Based on that, I don't see a problem with the next logical step being that the 'delusion' would be the aspect of existence that is extra. We all experience the physical world, even the religious ones amongst us, but ONLY (some of) the religious ones are having these experiences. That seems a reasonable argument.

Personally - I think it's a little flawed - I thoink we ALL have those experiences from time to time. When you're just sitting there eating fries dipped in icecream with your babies, and you get that moment of pure contentment? I think that's the same thing. I just think that religious people attach different significance to it, and/or experience it differently because of their convictions.

I don't think it's that binary. I think it's possible that those that have had mystical or numinous experiences have had actual experiences, while those who have not simply have not, without being deluded.

For example, I have shitty pitch. I just can't hear the difference that clearly between two similar musical notes. Yet my beloved is quite musical and hears worlds of difference between them. She experiences something I do not, but neither of us are delusional.

As in they couldn't replicate ANY of the data? Not even the skeptic response?

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/news041206-10.html

There's the article describing the inablity to replicate key results. I can't open it to read farther.

I always feel bad about responding to an original post without reading the whole thread, but it's late and there are 56 pages.



1) I was raised in a (Protestant) Christian household and went to church all of my adolescent life. I pretty much ignored it all as a colorful blur full of pretty stories until my late teens, when I started paying attention. I went to a small (non-denominational) private Christian school for grades 4-12, although the university I now attend is secular. I am a Christian and would like to think I take that seriously even if my formal involvement in religious organizations is patchy.

2) There are a lot of reasons. As far as evidence for a lot of Biblical claims and goes, I'll be the first to say I've got a lot of unresolved doubts. Ditto for for some widely accepted parts of church doctrine. I won't insult you all with a hasty attempt at explanation for my views on those things. Deep down, though, I think it comes down to this: The people in my life who have been nourishing, accepting, friendly and tolerant have been Christians. The people in my life who have noticeably not been those things have been...not.

Nobody ever gave me a fire-and-brimstone speech (at least, not a very effective one) or attempted to scare impure thoughts out of me. Nobody ever gave me a staggeringly awkward talk about the dangers of sex. Nobody ever attempted to drill chapter and verse of absolute doctrine into me. When Christians have talked to me about those things, they've typically been willing to talk out their reasons for believing what they do without shouting or condemning me for our differences.

Maybe that's a fluke. Maybe it's because I've consistently been surrounded by Christians who are also highly educated intellectuals. Maybe the ignorant, knee-jerk fanatics are the real face of the church and I've just been insulated from them. But the fact remains that I've scarcely ever met them, and when I do - abortion protestors on campus, exchanged horror stories about Catholic schools, and so forth - it's something alien to me that my own upbringing hasn't encouraged me to pursue. I don't know about your experiences with Christians, but my own experiences have led me to believe that the norm is something I can look up to and the crazy people are the exceptions.

3) Not applicable

I sure would like to hope that there are more out there with similar stories. It seems like this should be the right thing to happen...

If I had to trust either a Christian or a Junky, and knowing nothing more about them than that, I would choose to trust the Christian.Odd. My reaction would be precisely the opposite. Junkies, in my experience, might try to cadge some money off me or steal when I wasn't looking, so I would have to watch out for that; but Christians have turned unexpectedly violent.

Let's see we have: Jehovah, Adrammelech, Annamelech, Ashima, Ashtoreth, Baalberith, Baalpeor, Baalzebub, Bel, Chemosh, Dagon, Diana, Jupiter, Mercurius, Milcom, Molech, Nebo, Nergal, Nibhaz, Nisroch, Rimmon, Succoth-benoth, Tammuz, Tartak.

Shekhinah is additional and debatable. Lilith is additional and debatable.



First off wow you have done a lot of research in this area.

With exceptions of course Jehovah and maybe Mercurius. The rest have been reduced to enemies of God or down right demons. The only reason they are mentioned is as a warning. "Good guys" believe what we believe, bad guys believe in what fill in the blank believe






""I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

Division is a better word, mostly peaceful division. There were those did not get this fact.


"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."

Self- sacrifice. I suppose you could look at them as the same through a strange lens.


Myth? Beserkers are not a myth.

I was just trying to show that they wanted to build warriors. Yes I believe they existed.



The same arguments are made against 'satan'.

Fair enough on that point.


Neither one is monotheistic.

I don't think the others were mentioned in reverence.


Which is all you can say for either one.

Fair enough on that point.


That's not the cause of the change of the calender. The Calender was changed because the people recording the calenders were Christians.

Fair enough again.



Unprovable. He has no greater claim to reality than Odin.

This is the first time I have heard, except for our previous discussions on this, that anyone questioned if Jesus existed. I had not heard that argument before.



Which means he could have been a real man... but so could Odin.

Fair enough I suppose.



"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

"He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed"

"And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless."

And that's just ONE chapter, of ONE book.


Those are punishment for "evil" deeds more of "police type action" than warriors. I suppose it could be viewed as violent.


The same is true of Norse religion.

The same is true of Norse religion.

Apparently. But they're there.

I just enjoy talking about these topics I am not trying to "win a debate".

First off wow you have done a lot of research in this area.


Twenty years of study.


With exceptions of course Jehovah and maybe Mercurius. The rest have been reduced to enemies of God or down right demons.


Shekhinah is actually one of the 'aspects' of God in the Hebrew - it's the feminine creative spirit that God uses to imbue life, etc. Read your Bible in the original Hebrew - it's in there.

The fact is, though, that Dagon (for example) is a god in one religion, and is mentioned as a (false) god in the Bible. There's also the remaining pantheistic confusion from earlier Hebrew. Example 'god of gods'. What kind of accolade is it to be the god of gods, if there are no other gods? Why must you be the first among gods, if there are no other gods. Why does Jehovah go among the other gods, if there are no other gods.

The Bible has dozens of gods in it.


The only reason they are mentioned is as a warning. "Good guys" believe what we believe, bad guys believe in what fill in the blank believe


Which doesn't detract from them being 'gods'.


Division is a better word, mostly peaceful division. There were those did not get this fact.


'Division' is not a better word.

The Greek word is 'machaira', which is either a large butchering knife used for slaughter and dissection, or one of two types of small sword.

People 'do not get' the division angle, because it's pretty explicit that it means a sword.

The same Greek word is used in Matthew 26:47 "...and with him a great multitude with swords and stave..."; in Matthew 26:51 "...and drew his sword, and struck a servant...'; in Matthew 26:52 "...put up again thy sword into his place..."; Matthew 26:55 "...against a thief with swords and staves..."; Mark 14:43 "...a great multitude with swords and staves..."; Mark 14:47 "...drew a sword and smote a servant..."; Mark 14:48 "...with swords and staves to take me..."; Luke 21:24 "...they shall fall by the edge of the sword..."; Luke 22:36 "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one..."; Luke 22:38 "...here are two swords..."; Luke 22:49 "...shall we smite with the sword?"; Luke 22:52 "...against a thief, with swords and staves..."; John 18:10 "...having a sword drew it..."; John 18:11 "...put up thy sword into the sheath..."; Acts 12:2 "...he killed James the brother of John with the sword."; Acts 16:27 "...he drew out his sword and would have killed himself..."; Romans 8:35 "...who shall separate us from the love of Christ... tribulation, or distress... or sword?"; Romans 13:4 "...he beareth not the sword in vain..."; Ephesians 6:17 "...take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit..."; Hebrews 4:12 "...sharper than any twoedged sword..."; Hebrews 11:34 "...escaped the edge of the sword..."; Hebrews 11:37 "...were slain with the sword..."; Revelation 6:4 "...there was given unto him a great sword..."; and Revelation 13:10 "...he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword."

In every biblical instance, "machaira" translates as 'sword'. And the only translation that WORKS is 'sword'.

There is no scriptural reason to translate "machaira" as anything BUT sword.


Self- sacrifice. I suppose you could look at them as the same through a strange lens.


They are the same.


I don't think the others were mentioned in reverence.


Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both mentioned quite reverently, aren't they? That's polytheism, right there.


This is the first time I have heard, except for our previous discussions on this, that anyone questioned if Jesus existed. I had not heard that argument before.


It's been an OPEN and ongoing discussion for more than a century.


Those are punishment for "evil" deeds more of "police type action" than warriors. I suppose it could be viewed as violent.


You suppose that it could be violent? As in - but then again, it could not be? Putting people to death for their religion might NOT be violent? How, exactly?

And I only looked through one chapter of one book, and not even the most violent. Try actually reading the genocide in Canaan.


I just enjoy talking about these topics I am not trying to "win a debate".

I'm not trying to 'win' either. What would I win?

Would you convert from Christianity to Atheism? No matter how much evidence I presented?

Would I even WANT you to? What would that gain?

Well, first of all, there are many different types of religious experience. There are full blown mystical experiences...


Those are the ones we've been discussing under that term, I believe.


A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.


I already provided a psychological definition of delusion, also from Wiki - the difference between the two is that the one you posted seems to be a revision of what I posted, that has been deliberately re-designed so as to make the one special excpetion that religion doesn't 'count'.


The trouble with getting these defined as delusion is that we have no 'incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary' that it is actually a mystical or numinous experience.


If 10 of us are in the room, and one of us sees Jesus, the proof is pretty 'obvious' that Jesus isn't really there, and photographic evidence would be 'incontrovertible'.


I don't think it's that binary. I think it's possible that those that have had mystical or numinous experiences have had actual experiences, while those who have not simply have not, without being deluded.

For example, I have shitty pitch. I just can't hear the difference that clearly between two similar musical notes.


But, can you hear the difference between music and silence?


Yet my beloved is quite musical and hears worlds of difference between them. She experiences something I do not, but neither of us are delusional.


One of you is 'wrong', yes?

Knowing she has better pitch, you assume that she is 'right', and that you are not hearing it right, right? ANd you are willing to be assured that she is hearing it right, right?


http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/news041206-10.html

There's the article describing the inablity to replicate key results. I can't open it to read farther.

I found another source for it:

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news-print.cfm?art=1424

Persinger says they didn't manage to replicate the conditions, so they didn't replicate the results. Also - they DID get results. It's not like they failed to get ANY response.

I prefer the traditional definition:

Christian:

One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ insofar as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

This has proved accurate in my experience.

There's also the remaining pantheistic confusion from earlier Hebrew. Example 'god of gods'.

There is no such phrase in the Hebrew.
Why does Jehovah go among the other gods, if there are no other gods.

No such thing occurs in the Bible.
It's been an OPEN and ongoing discussion for more than a century.

There have been a small number of cultish authors promoting such a notion. There has never been any serious discussion among scholars.

I prefer the traditional definition:

Christian:

One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ insofar as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

This has proved accurate in my experience.

Eh? not inconsistent = consistent. How does that definition work?

If you meant 'inconsistent with a life of sin', that's still just a tautology when preceeded by 'follows the teaching of christ'.

There is no such phrase in the Hebrew.


Now, now...

If you're going to play it as if it's a direct negation, you should at least be honest about it.

Lord of Lords, translatable as 'god of gods':

אדון is directly translatable (in reference to god), as "the Lord God", "Lord of the whole earth", no?

Let's not flat out deny something when no such flat-out denial is there.


And, let's have a look at Psalms 136:2, shall we?

"O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy (endureth) forever"

In the Hebrew, [yadah 'elohiym 'elohiym checed 'owlam]


No such thing occurs in the Bible.


Psalm 82:1 "...God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods..."


There have been a small number of cultish authors promoting such a notion. There has never been any serious discussion among scholars.

A small minority has opposed the majority. No one is denying that.

There is serious discussion, and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

If you're going to play it as if it's a direct negation, you should at least be honest about it.
How about you being honest?
Lord of Lords, translatable as 'god of gods':
This is dishonest in two different ways: first, there is no phrase "Lord of Lords" in the Hebrew; and second, if there were such a phrase, it would not be the same as "god of gods" (it would mean more like "king of kings").
אדון is directly translatable (in reference to god), as "the Lord God", "Lord of the whole earth", no?
Adon itself translates as "lord" (as in "landlord" etc.; addressed to a person it could be translated "sir"); what translates to "the Lord God" wouldn't just be adon alone, but Adonai Elohim (more literally "my lord, God"); for "Lord of the earth" you would want adon ha'aretz but again I believe there is no such phrase in the Hebrew.
And, let's have a look at Psalms 136:2, shall we?

"O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy (endureth) forever"

In the Hebrew, [yadah 'elohiym 'elohiym checed 'owlam]
OK, I will check that passage out when I get back home (I don't have my Tanakh with me), but what you are giving is not "the Hebrew" but just a listing of roots (did you get this out of a Strong's Concordance or something? obviously not out of an actual Hebrew text), reading "to-endure god god mercy ages". I want to see the inflected forms to see how this should really translate.
Psalm 82:1 "...God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods..."
Again: I will check it out.
There is serious discussion, and pretending otherwise is dishonest.
To call the discussion "serious" is dishonest. The Jesus-never-existed literature is craptastic: that is not my opinion alone; I do not know of a single serious scholar who pays it any more attention than Lost-Continent-of-Mu literature.

Can't abide Christianity. Julian the Apostate should be commended for his attempts to eradicate it, as should Diocletian. Tedious, anaemic religion.

This is dishonest in two different ways: first, there is no phrase "Lord of Lords" in the Hebrew;


Deuteronomy 10:17


...and second, if there were such a phrase, it would not be the same as "god of gods" (it would mean more like "king of kings").


God of gods and Lord of lords, all in one verse.


Adon itself translates as "lord" (as in "landlord" etc.; addressed to a person it could be translated "sir"); what translates to "the Lord God" wouldn't just be adon alone, but Adonai Elohim (more literally "my lord, God"); for "Lord of the earth" you would want adon ha'aretz but again I believe there is no such phrase in the Hebrew.


When refering to men, it is perfectly acceptable to translate Adon as 'Lord'. When refering to gods, it is perfectly acceptable to translate Adon as 'the Lord God'.


OK, I will check that passage out when I get back home (I don't have my Tanakh with me), but what you are giving is not "the Hebrew" but just a listing of roots (did you get this out of a Strong's Concordance or something? obviously not out of an actual Hebrew text),


I can post:

הֹודוּ לֵֽאלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי לְעֹולָם חַסְדֹּֽו׃

But it's not helpful. (Especially to other people who may be interested). I'm limited by my technology, since I'm posting from work. So - yes, I'm largely posting transliteration of root forms.


The Jesus-never-existed literature is craptastic


The Jesus-existed literature is 'craptastic'.


...that is not my opinion alone; I do not know of a single serious scholar who pays it any more attention than Lost-Continent-of-Mu literature.

No, that's your opinion. It's also two logical fallacies: Argumentum ad populum, and an appeal to authority.

Can't abide Christianity. Julian the Apostate should be commended for his attempts to eradicate it, as should Diocletian. Tedious, anaemic religion.

Am I confused or are you referring to Gnostic writers? I must be confused.:confused:

EDIT: Upon checking my sources, nope. I was confused and you weren't referring to Gnostic writers. My bad.

GnI, just out of curiosity, what the hell do you do for a living, and what the hell did you study, that allows you to post like you do?? Sheesh, it's like watching a high school football team take on the Steelers!

GnI, just out of curiosity, what the hell do you do for a living, and what the hell did you study, that allows you to post like you do?? Sheesh, it's like watching a high school football team take on the Steelers!

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I know so little about this 'football' thing, that I'm not sure what to make of it.

If I'm the high school team, I think I just got served.

Then again, if the Steelers are known for being crappy, I'm an underdog champion.

Or maybe I'm the Steelers, which is either good or not.

So - I'm either really insulted, really complimented or... too ignorant to know if there's another alternative. And unlikely to ever know which it is. :D

As you can tell, I don't coach football, and I didn't study it.


My work is science, my study has been... well, formally I've studied sciences (specifically Chemistry), Business, English literature, and a couple of other things (formal, vocational qualifications in things from business management to emergency management).

Informally, I've studied religions (mainly Abrahamic and Mesopotamian), literature, various science stuff, various languages (I'm currently trying to learn Japanese and Spanish).

I post on NS less than I study.

Erm... and, I'm either crying or thanking you. You'll have to tell me which. :D

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I know so little about this 'football' thing, that I'm not sure what to make of it.

If I'm the high school team, I think I just got served.

Then again, if the Steelers are known for being crappy, I'm an underdog champion.

Or maybe I'm the Steelers, which is either good or not.

So - I'm either really insulted, really complimented or... too ignorant to know if there's another alternative. And unlikely to ever know which it is. :D

As you can tell, I don't coach football, and I didn't study it.

My apologies. The Steelers just won our Superbowl in rather spectacular fashion. Watching others try and debate you, thus, is like watching a high school team take on the Superbowl champs (i.e. you).

Now that I think about it, I'd love to actually see that happen.....



My work is science, my study has been... well, formally I've studied sciences (specifically Chemistry), Business, English literature, and a couple of other things (formal, vocational qualifications in things from business management to emergency management).

Informally, I've studied religions (mainly Abrahamic and Mesopotamian), literature, various science stuff, various languages (I'm currently trying to learn Japanese and Spanish).

I post on NS less than I study.

Erm... and, I'm either crying or thanking you. You'll have to tell me which. :D

Wow, that's a diverse selection. I guess it's easier to get into and talk about stuff you do on your own time when no one forces you.

My apologies. The Steelers just won our Superbowl in rather spectacular fashion. Watching others try and debate you, thus, is like watching a high school team take on the Superbowl champs (i.e. you).


Ah, in that case I'm positively blushing from the compliments. Many thanks.


Now that I think about it, I'd love to actually see that happen.....


Even I might watch that game... :D


Wow, that's a diverse selection. I guess it's easier to get into and talk about stuff you do on your own time when no one forces you.

I have a few subjects I'm passionate about, that also make occassional (or frequent) forays into NS General. Rather less of my 'formal' interests flit across the nationstates forums. When was the last quantum mechanics thread? Never, you say?

Even I might watch that game... :D

Annoying little know-it-all high schoolers getting the crap beat out of them...who wouldn't watch that?



I have a few subjects I'm passionate about, that also make occassional (or frequent) forays into NS General. Rather less of my 'formal' interests flit across the nationstates forums. When was the last quantum mechanics thread? Never, you say?

Now there's an interesting one. Should try and find an article that's semi-controversial and post about it.

Deuteronomy 10:17
God of gods and Lord of lords, all in one verse.
You are correct:
Kiy YHWH elohey-kem huw elohey ha-elohiym wa-adoney ha-adoniym
for YHWH god-your, he god-of the-gods and-lord-of the-lords
When refering to men, it is perfectly acceptable to translate Adon as 'Lord'. When refering to gods, it is perfectly acceptable to translate Adon as 'the Lord God'.
That is entirely improper. A translation should confine itself to what the words themselves denote, and not interpolate other ideas that you think the author must also have been thinking. For example, some early Christians of non-mainstream types might well speak of "Christ our Lord" and call him the "Lord of Lords", meaning that they regard him as the highest-ranking human, not as a God-equivalent: if you slip in words on the assumption that these authors share the trinitarian concepts of mainstream Christians, you could obscure the whole meaning of the texts.
I can post:

הֹודוּ לֵֽאלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי לְעֹולָם חַסְדֹּֽו׃

But it's not helpful. (Especially to other people who may be interested). I'm limited by my technology, since I'm posting from work. So - yes, I'm largely posting transliteration of root forms.
Transliterate the text as it stands; that is more useful than the bare roots:
[I]howd-uw l-elohey ha-elohiym kiy l-'olam chasd-ow
praise-ye to-god-of the-gods for to-ages devotion-his
howd-uw la-adoney ha-adoniym kiy l-'olam chasd-ow
praise-ye to-lord-of the-lords for to-ages devotion-his

This is not as good an example of "fossilized polytheism" as the Deuteronomy verse because it is an exceedingly late Psalm: we find she- instead of asher for the relative pronoun, characteristic of the Persian period, so this is not really a reflection of the early stages of Hebrew belief.

There are better examples for your purpose of showing how the monotheism evolved out of an earlier polytheism: Gen. 14:18-20 shows Abram at a shrine to El 'elyon "the highest god" (implying that in Abraham's day, instead of a belief that "there is only one", we find a belief that "there is one who outranks the others"); Exodus 20:2 is usually rendered "ye shall have no gods besides me" but 'al pan-ay is better rendered "before me" (that is, again, YHWH is the highest-ranking, not the only); I and II Kings are filled with mentions of other forms of worship being allowed to continue even by the "good" kings (these worships are retroactively disparaged, but evidently there was nothing seen to be wrong about them at the time).

Your citation of Psalm 82, however, is distinctly not a good example. The usage of "gods" there is nakedly sarcastic, and has to be read in "scare-quotes": the reference is to human bureaucrats. "Why do you judge corruptly, showing favor to the wicked? You should uphold the rights of the orphaned and the widows... I called you gods, yes sons of the Highest, all of you, but you will die like any other men."
No, that's your opinion. It's also two logical fallacies: Argumentum ad populum, and an appeal to authority.
It would be, if we were talking about the merits of the Jesus-never-existed theories: but to do that, you would have to actually present their arguments so I could discuss the substance. Instead what we were talking about is your claim that those theories are seriously discussed: as a factual matter, no, they're not; professionals who devote their lives to studying these subjects devote no more time to that than geologists do to "flood geology" ideas, or Sumeriologists to Sitchin's tales about Annunaki from the planet Nibiru. Now, you may feel that these theories deserve to be seriously discussed: however, they aren't.

It would be, if we were talking about the merits of the Jesus-never-existed theories: but to do that, you would have to actually present their arguments so I could discuss the substance. Instead what we were talking about is your claim that those theories are seriously discussed: as a factual matter, no, they're not; professionals who devote their lives to studying these subjects devote no more time to that than geologists do to "flood geology" ideas, or Sumeriologists to Sitchin's tales about Annunaki from the planet Nibiru. Now, you may feel that these theories deserve to be seriously discussed: however, they aren't.

You're talking nonsense, I'm afraid.

The 'merits' of the Jesus-never-existed 'theories' are the fact that there's no good evidence to believe that Jesus ever existed. It doesn't need it's own attack formation with rafts of ideas - the simple lacks of the Jesus-existed argument are sufficient.

And then you (once again) commit your paired fallacies, referring to the obviously multiple and obviously laudable 'professionals'. Who pays for research into the non-existence of Jesus, I wonder?

But, I wonder what that means you make of the Ahistoricists? Earl Doherty? Mythicists?

I think you're playing a No True Scotsman fallacy. I think you're going to dismiss every group, every individual, that doesn't agree with the 'historical' argument, as not being a 'serious scholar'.

There are many serious scholars currently debating 'historical' Jesus, but it wouldn't matter if there were only one. One voice of dissent can be the only right voice in a crowd of wrong voices. And that's where your appeal to authority falls down. And anyone who can handle the 'tools' of history, can have the insight that sees the truth, even when every other eye sees the lie - and that's where your argument from authority falls down.

Simply denying the fact that it's no longer AUTOMATICALLY taken as true, by everyone... won't make it go away.

The 'merits' of the Jesus-never-existed 'theories' are the fact that there's no good evidence to believe that Jesus ever existed.
Just the bare fact that people, believer and non-believers alike, talked about such a person is prima facie evidence that there was such a person. There were plenty of arguments made against early Christianity, but nobody ever thought of pointing out "Hey, there wasn't even such a person": now why is that? There is an obvious explanation, and you don't offer another one.

This whole notion that people go around inventing stories about non-existent characters started in the 19th century, when it was common to argue that Troy never was a real city, just a novelistic invention by the poets, and Heracles never was a real person, just a "solar allegory" who was given human traits, etc. But that turned out not to be right: yes there was a Troy, and while we can't trust any of the tall tales in the Iliad, we do know that its geographic information is solid, that the names of the Trojan princes are typical of the language spoken there, so probably most of the names are actual warriors from that fight; yes, Heracles was the founding ancestor of an important family that contributed ruling dynasties to Sparta and other Dorian Greek cities, and while we can't garner much biographical information from the myths, we can bet that he was in fact memorably strong. Tall tales always start from something: that's how the world works, not this modern fantasy that folklore gets invented out of whole cloth.
It doesn't need it's own attack formation with rafts of ideas
Yes, in fact it does.

And then you (once again) commit your paired fallacies, referring to the obviously multiple and obviously laudable 'professionals'. Who pays for research into the non-existence of Jesus, I wonder?
When you're a tenured professor nobody tells you what you can or can't do research into; they'll pay your salary whatever you're working on.
But, I wonder what that means you make of the Ahistoricists? Earl Doherty? Mythicists?
I don't make anything out of Earl Doherty, because I don't know him, and you aren't showing me anything. I have "Pagan Christs" and a bunch of S. Acharya's stuff: it's really rubbishy. Do you have anything better? So far, you are making the "appeal to popularity", simply asserting that there are a bunch of people seriously discussing this, without showing anything serious from any of these people. Without the substance, there isn't much to say.
One voice of dissent can be the only right voice in a crowd of wrong voices.
But more often not.
Simply denying the fact that it's no longer AUTOMATICALLY taken as true, by everyone... won't make it go away.
If you look around the Intertubes, you can find all kinds of things being said, and they won't stop being said. So?

Those are the ones we've been discussing under that term, I believe.

I have a question. Do you think that the delusion exists in the experience, or the belief about the experience?

Like, "No, that didn't really happen to you" or "Yes, it happened, but it wasn't god"?

I already provided a psychological definition of delusion, also from Wiki - the difference between the two is that the one you posted seems to be a revision of what I posted, that has been deliberately re-designed so as to make the one special excpetion that religion doesn't 'count'.

The other one works fine too. The problem still exists that you can't provide evidence that the supoosed delusion is patently untrue.

If 10 of us are in the room, and one of us sees Jesus, the proof is pretty 'obvious' that Jesus isn't really there, and photographic evidence would be 'incontrovertible'.

Yes. Then you could provide evidence that that particular instance is an example of delusion. This would be impossible for other experiences.

But, can you hear the difference between music and silence?

Deaf people can't. The point is that an inability to sense something does not mean that the thing does not exist.

One of you is 'wrong', yes?

Knowing she has better pitch, you assume that she is 'right', and that you are not hearing it right, right? ANd you are willing to be assured that she is hearing it right, right?

No. Neither of us is wrong. I am hearing correctly. I'm just hearing less.

I found another source for it:

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news-print.cfm?art=1424

Persinger says they didn't manage to replicate the conditions, so they didn't replicate the results. Also - they DID get results. It's not like they failed to get ANY response.

They found that those who weren't having their temporal lobes excited by magnetic fields had the same frequency of spiritual experiences as those who did get the treatment.

How about you being honest?

This is dishonest in two different ways: first, there is no phrase "Lord of Lords" in the Hebrew; and second, if there were such a phrase, it would not be the same as "god of gods" (it would mean more like "king of kings").

Adon itself translates as "lord" (as in "landlord" etc.; addressed to a person it could be translated "sir"); what translates to "the Lord God" wouldn't just be adon alone, but Adonai Elohim (more literally "my lord, God"); for "Lord of the earth" you would want adon ha'aretz but again I believe there is no such phrase in the Hebrew.

OK, I will check that passage out when I get back home (I don't have my Tanakh with me), but what you are giving is not "the Hebrew" but just a listing of roots (did you get this out of a Strong's Concordance or something? obviously not out of an actual Hebrew text), reading "to-endure god god mercy ages". I want to see the inflected forms to see how this should really translate.

Again: I will check it out.

To call the discussion "serious" is dishonest. The Jesus-never-existed literature is craptastic: that is not my opinion alone; I do not know of a single serious scholar who pays it any more attention than Lost-Continent-of-Mu literature.

Thank you for joining the discussion. It is so nice to hear from someone who can read the language. I am at disadvantage in that regard. I would really like to take Hebrew lessons but I fear I am too old to start.

I wouldn't particularly call myself expert, but I have at least a basic ability to pick it apart grammatically. I do not, obviously, have the whole Bible memorized (when I said GnI's phrases "god of gods" and "lord of lords" did not occur in the text, I was mistaken).

I wouldn't particularly call myself expert, but I have at least a basic ability to pick it apart grammatically. I do not, obviously, have the whole Bible memorized (when I said GnI's phrases "god of gods" and "lord of lords" did not occur in the text, I was mistaken).

Thanks anyway. I think just from the descriptions you provided the writer in question is not really suggesting that there are other gods, more that Our God is the real deal. Yeah you other guys claim you have God[s] but we have the "real" one. It would be like me saying you are a "true man among men". It meant in praise I think not to suggest that there are others.

Just the bare fact that people, believer and non-believers alike, talked about such a person is prima facie evidence that there was such a person.


The question isn't whether that's bullshit, it's whether you KNOW it's bullshit, but are saying it anyway.

For 23 centuries, the bulk of understanding among even the most knowledgable people, circled around the idea that atoms were tiny, solid and indivisible objects. Unfortunately for your argument, 'commonly accepted' and 'actually true' have coincidental relation, at best.


There were plenty of arguments made against early Christianity, but nobody ever thought of pointing out "Hey, there wasn't even such a person":
[quote]

...which you are now going to support, by presenting evidence of no one ever saying it.

Let's see that evidence?

[QUOTE=Tmutarakhan;14480004]
This whole notion that people go around inventing stories about non-existent characters started in the 19th century


Again, the question isn't whether that's bullshit, but whether you actually KNOW it's bullshit, even while you're saying it.

Let's stick with religion, since we're already there, and look at the Old Testament texts claiming EXACTLY that, at least 24 centuries before your claim.


Tall tales always start from something: that's how the world works, not this modern fantasy that folklore gets invented out of whole cloth.


'This modern fantasy' apparently appears only in your own head. Even those who claim that Jesus was not real (tend to) attribute the story to some other root.


Yes, in fact it does.


No, it really doesn't.

Ignoring sciences for a moment - which are far more rigourous than to allow your point to stand, even our modern philosophy is too rigourous to allow it. That which cannot be arrived at through a priori justification, must be arrivable at through a posteriori.

Since one can't logically deduce the Jesus story, the principle of salvation, the claims of fulfilling Messianic prophecy, etc through reason alone, it MUST be evidenced through... well, evidence!


I don't make anything out of Earl Doherty, because I don't know him, and you aren't showing me anything.


You claimed there is no serious discussion. You admit you don't know of Earl Doherty.

Thus, I can instantly discard your original claim as an 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.

I think also the Bible makes reference to them to show this is what the people you will come into contact believe and do not follow their ways.

It may look harmless to eat these "moon" cakes but actually they are part of a ritual.

I think what is important here is does the person in question believe that by eating this "moon" cake that they are giving glory to "whoever moon God or Goddess" or are they just hungry and would like some cake.

Let's face in the Old Testament they were conflicted. I think some of us today might be conflicted given the circumstance. They originally had many beliefs which they were force / encouraged to discard.

So you had out with old and in with the new.

New Testament same thing.

The bible is a law book, an account of a people, a brief explanation of why things are the way they are. It is not meant to be a history book except with how those key events shaped what we believe. It goes to Why, What, and Who, more than When and How.

This whole notion that people go around inventing stories about non-existent characters started in the 19th century

An intruiging claim. Can you back it up with more than the already provided examples ?
And would that not explain quite well why noone ever claimed "Jesus was not real" (assuming for the sake of argument that statement is correct) ? Maybe the people who made Him up were 19 centuries ahead of their time - if noone realises you can make stuff like that up they will of course believe it.

I have a question. Do you think that the delusion exists in the experience, or the belief about the experience?

Like, "No, that didn't really happen to you" or "Yes, it happened, but it wasn't god"?


If I'm understanding you right, 'delusion' has components of each, by definition.


The other one works fine too. The problem still exists that you can't provide evidence that the supoosed delusion is patently untrue.


The other one works better, in my estimation, because it doesn't allow the two fallacies that the more 'accepted' version does - it doesn't allow a plea for special exception, and it doesn't allow Argumentum ad populum.


Yes. Then you could provide evidence that that particular instance is an example of delusion. This would be impossible for other experiences.


The same 'evidence' exists. It's only arguable in degree.

If there are only two people in the room, and you see Jesus, and I dont - the material evidence is the same as if there were ten.


Deaf people can't. The point is that an inability to sense something does not mean that the thing does not exist.


But the existence or non-existence of the thing DOES speak to the ability to witness the thing.

"Deaf people" are irrelevent. We're not talking about whether you can hear the music, we're talking about whether it exists. If it doesn't, and someone is hearing it...


No. Neither of us is wrong. I am hearing correctly. I'm just hearing less.


I thought you said something about pitch.


They found that those who weren't having their temporal lobes excited by magnetic fields had the same frequency of spiritual experiences as those who did get the treatment.

They also found that both groups had higher than predictable repsonses... which means at least one other factor was at work, which thye have thus far not accounted for.

My guess would be that - while they commendably DID run blinds, they let people know, in some way, what the nature of the whole experiment was - and thus got an OVERALL placebo effect which masks whether there was actually any statistical difference between the two groups.

. When was the last quantum mechanics thread? Never, you say?

:(

start one then!

The paradoxical experiments are the best!

:(

start one then!

The paradoxical experiments are the best!

If you can convince Jolt to support LaTeX webcode...

Am I confused or are you referring to Gnostic writers? I must be confused.:confused:

EDIT: Upon checking my sources, nope. I was confused and you weren't referring to Gnostic writers. My bad.

Not a problem. Us Late Antique geeks are a rare breed.

If I'm understanding you right, 'delusion' has components of each, by definition.

No, I don't think you are understanding me.

If I see god, and it's a delusion, then either the experience didn't really happen, and my delsuion is that it did happen, or I did really experience it, and I'm deluded about the fact that it was god.

Which do you think it is?

The other one works better, in my estimation, because it doesn't allow the two fallacies that the more 'accepted' version does - it doesn't allow a plea for special exception, and it doesn't allow Argumentum ad populum.

There is no special exception. All beliefs or experiences that can be shown to be untrue can be considered delusional. If you can find a religious belief or experience that can be shown to be untrue, you could then claim it was delusional.

And both definitions allow for the popularity argument, which is also irrelevant to my point.

The same 'evidence' exists. It's only arguable in degree.

If there are only two people in the room, and you see Jesus, and I dont - the material evidence is the same as if there were ten.

What if it was an intense feeling of euphoria and interconnectedness? Since people don't ever feel each other's feelings, there can't really be some sort of material evidence that would show it was delusional.

But the existence or non-existence of the thing DOES speak to the ability to witness the thing.

"Deaf people" are irrelevent. We're not talking about whether you can hear the music, we're talking about whether it exists. If it doesn't, and someone is hearing it...

Yes. And as soon as we can say that something definitely doesn't exist, we can then say that all experiences of that thing are delusions.

They also found that both groups had higher than predictable repsonses... which means at least one other factor was at work, which thye have thus far not accounted for.

My guess would be that - while they commendably DID run blinds, they let people know, in some way, what the nature of the whole experiment was - and thus got an OVERALL placebo effect which masks whether there was actually any statistical difference between the two groups.

As long as we're clear that his results have never been replicated.

I thought Persinger also let them know what was going to happen?

Not a problem. Us Late Antique geeks are a rare breed.

The study of Apostacy can do that to people.:tongue:

If you can convince Jolt to support LaTeX webcode...

brb! :tongue:

No, I don't think you are understanding me.

If I see god, and it's a delusion, then either the experience didn't really happen, and my delsuion is that it did happen, or I did really experience it, and I'm deluded about the fact that it was god.

Which do you think it is?


False dichotomy. It could be both - and the definition of 'delusional' basically relies on elements of both.


There is no special exception.


On the contrary, the version you posted makes a plain case for special exception, by limiting it to things that are NOT "ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture".


And both definitions allow for the popularity argument, which is also irrelevant to my point.


How do Jasper's criteria allow for the popularity argument?


What if it was an intense feeling of euphoria and interconnectedness? Since people don't ever feel each other's feelings, there can't really be some sort of material evidence that would show it was delusional.


Are we going to end up with "what if... I stand on one leg and balance a melon on my nose, is my hat a delusion?", that kind of thing?
I guess you're trying to finesse it so that you can argue there CAN be an experience that CAN be argued as religious but that CAN also be argued as not delusion. I don't really see how that helps. That looks like weasel words, trying to find a semantic argument out of the conclusion.


Yes. And as soon as we can say that something definitely doesn't exist, we can then say that all experiences of that thing are delusions.


Right.

We can safely SAY it, then. But it IS delusion, NOW.


As long as we're clear that his results have never been replicated.


That's because the EXPERIMENT has never been replicated.


I thought Persinger also let them know what was going to happen?


Persinger said that they knew a field was going to be activated, but not what to expect at particular settings. In a way - his study was better blinded than the second 'attempt'.

The study of Apostacy can do that to people.:tongue:

I am, unashamedly, a member of the callow romantic Julian the Apostate lover club. :tongue:

No, I don't think you are understanding me.

If I see god, and it's a delusion, then either the experience didn't really happen, and my delsuion is that it did happen, or I did really experience it, and I'm deluded about the fact that it was god.

Which do you think it is?



There is no special exception. All beliefs or experiences that can be shown to be untrue can be considered delusional. If you can find a religious belief or experience that can be shown to be untrue, you could then claim it was delusional.

And both definitions allow for the popularity argument, which is also irrelevant to my point.



What if it was an intense feeling of euphoria and interconnectedness? Since people don't ever feel each other's feelings, there can't really be some sort of material evidence that would show it was delusional.



Yes. And as soon as we can say that something definitely doesn't exist, we can then say that all experiences of that thing are delusions.



As long as we're clear that his results have never been replicated.

I thought Persinger also let them know what was going to happen?



Good points all of them. It reminds me of the question of If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound.

It depends on your definition of "sound"

Does sound mean "sonic vibrations" if so we can show that if drop anything in a oxygen environment and it is sufficiently hard enough and heavy enough it will normally make a sound falling against something that is hard and rigid such as the ground.

Will it always make a sound? No


Sound could also be from a medical standpoint the vibration against your ear drum. In which case no sound was made. This is the only case where we might be certain. Assuming that ear drum is in perfect working order etc.

I think something can be right or wrong depending on your point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information or certain effects of perception which would more properly be termed an apperception or illusion.



So a better word might be illusion. The reason is we have incomplete information that God exists.

If we then look up illusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion

An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.[1] Illusions may occur with more of the human senses than vision, but visual illusions, optical illusions, are the most well known and understood. The emphasis on visual illusions occurs because vision often dominates the other senses. For example, individuals watching a ventriloquist will perceive the voice is coming from the dummy since they are able to see the dummy mouth the words.[2] Some illusions are based on general assumptions the brain makes during perception. These assumptions are made using organizational principles, like Gestalt, an individual's ability of depth perception and motion perception, and perceptual constancy. Other illusions occur because of biological sensory structures within the human body or conditions outside of the body within one’s physical environment.



I think this is more likely.

I would further submit that with the stimulating these areas of the brain maybe we are doing this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality


Simulated reality is the proposition that reality could be simulated—perhaps by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not know that they are living inside a simulation. In its strongest form, the "simulation hypothesis" claims it is possible and even probable that we are actually living in such a simulation.

This is different from the current, technologically achievable concept of virtual reality. Virtual reality is easily distinguished from the experience of "true" reality; participants are never in doubt about the nature of what they experience. Simulated reality, by contrast, would be hard or impossible to distinguish from "true" reality.

The idea of a simulated reality raises several questions:

Is it possible, even in principle, to tell whether we are in a simulated reality?
Is there any difference between a simulated reality and a "real" one?
How should we behave if we knew that we were living in a simulated reality?

a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

That's Christianity summed up in a sentence.

I am, unashamedly, a member of the callow romantic Julian the Apostate lover club. :tongue:

After reading about him, although briefly, I think I can understand your preference with him.

That's Christianity summed up in a sentence.

Evidence, please.

Evidence, please.

How does one go about citing the entire universe and all of reality?

*whistles innocently*

How does one go about citing the entire universe and all of reality?

*whistles innocently*

A long-ass bibliography

False dichotomy. It could be both

Yes. I was thinking about that too. It could also be delusional in that the person mistakenly believes that it ca be attributed to an external stimulus when there is clear evidence that it is not.

- and the definition of 'delusional' basically relies on elements of both.

This part I don't get.

On the contrary, the version you posted makes a plain case for special exception, by limiting it to things that are NOT "ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture".

How do Jasper's criteria allow for the popularity argument?

I don't really care about the popularity argument and you can use whichever one you wish.

Are we going to end up with "what if... I stand on one leg and balance a melon on my nose, is my hat a delusion?", that kind of thing?
I guess you're trying to finesse it so that you can argue there CAN be an experience that CAN be argued as religious but that CAN also be argued as not delusion. I don't really see how that helps. That looks like weasel words, trying to find a semantic argument out of the conclusion.

No, I'm talking about a qualitative difference between different types of religious experiences. If we are talking about an experience where someone actually sees the clouds parting and a big wheel come down and out comes an old bearded Jewish guy who starts talking, and we have tons of cameras set up and they don't record a thing except a guy looking around at nothing and talking to nothing, we can say something about it because we have an experience that is supposed to be observable, and isn't.

But the transcendental enlightenment of Zen Buddhists is not observable by anyone except the person who is involved in the experience. It's different in that way.

Right.

We can safely SAY it, then. But it IS delusion, NOW.

It could be.

That's because the EXPERIMENT has never been replicated.

Then I would say that the range of experiments is to small to say anything, from a scientific point of view.

Persinger said that they knew a field was going to be activated, but not what to expect at particular settings. In a way - his study was better blinded than the second 'attempt'.

I didn't read that anywhere. Do you have a source?

But the transcendental enlightenment of Zen Buddhists is not observable by anyone except the person who is involved in the experience. It's different in that way.


And perhaps the transcendental enlightenment of buddhists wouldn't really fit into the parameters we've largely been discussing. Of course, those goalposts have drifted a little, but I think we've roughly been aiming at the "burning bush, Mufasa-breaking-through-the-clouds" arena.


It could be.


It is or it isn't. There is no 'could be'.

The best you can argue is that we don't yet KNOW if it is or it isn't... but it is already so. Or it is already NOT so. Whichever.


Then I would say that the range of experiments is to small to say anything, from a scientific point of view.


Like measuring the speed of light is over too small a range because it only accounts for photons?


I didn't read that anywhere. Do you have a source?

Pretty sure something about it was at the end of the article I linked.

And would that not explain quite well why noone ever claimed "Jesus was not real" (assuming for the sake of argument that statement is correct) ? Maybe the people who made Him up were 19 centuries ahead of their time - if noone realises you can make stuff like that up they will of course believe it.
You are misunderstanding. I did not say that in the 19th century actually did start making up folklore out of nothing: it was then that people started theorizing that other people used to behave that way; but apparently, no-one, ever, really behaved that way. The closest example I could come up with for somebody trying to make up a new mythology out of nothing would be L. Ron Hubbard's "Xenu" story, which would also be an example of why it would never work very well.
The question isn't whether that's bullshit, it's whether you KNOW it's bullshit, but are saying it anyway.
What are you talking about? ALL of history is full of people mentioning other people, and we take as our default assumption that people refer to other people because those other people existed. Plato mentions a "Euthyphro" who discussed with Socrates whether he should prosecute his father for beating a slave to death; Josephus mentions a "Costabarus" who was involved in one of the uproars that escalated into the Jewish wars; Procopius mentions a "Boreax", widow of Attila's brother Bleda, who was allowed to rule some territories after Attila killed Bleda. These are just three randomly chosen examples of people who are mentioned in one source, and one source only. Why should we expect people from ancient times to get more than one mention in preserved writings? Most people, obviously, didn't get even one.

The usual theory for explaining these mentions would be: there was an Athenian citizen named Euthyphro (but we do not assume that Plato is giving a verbatim transcript of his interview with Socrates), a Judean troublemaker named Costabarus (but we know that Josephus might have propaganda reasons for not telling the story exactly), a Hunnish princess named Boreax (but Procopius might not have been well-informed about her exact rank). To suppose anything else would be an extraordinary hypothesis, for which you would need to give good explanations.
[Tmutarakhan]There were plenty of arguments made against early Christianity, but nobody ever thought of pointing out "Hey, there wasn't even such a person":

...which you are now going to support, by presenting evidence of no one ever saying it.

Let's see that evidence?
You want to see the entire universe and all of reality?
The burden of proof is always on the side making the positive claim. Show me your evidence of anyone ever saying it.
Let's stick with religion, since we're already there, and look at the Old Testament texts claiming EXACTLY that, at least 24 centuries before your claim.
I assume you got interrupted in your posting? You propose that we look at some texts, and then don't actually give any: what are you talking about?
Since one can't logically deduce the Jesus story, the principle of salvation, the claims of fulfilling Messianic prophecy, etc through reason alone, it MUST be evidenced through... well, evidence!
We are not talking about the eventual elaborations to the story (none of which I believe). We are talking about the default assumption that the story got started because there was a human named Jesus who went around Judea teaching [something or other; figuring out what he actually said is a whole different issue].
You claimed there is no serious discussion. You admit you don't know of Earl Doherty.
Doherty is a random guy on the Internet, who has read a lot but has never been part of the scholarly community. I had never heard of him because he has never gotten much of any attention in the scholarly literature; when he is discussed, HE IS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY (http://tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html). You may think that there ought to be serious discussion of his ideas, but the fact is, there isn't.

So OK, I looked at Doherty's stuff, specifically how he handles 1st Corinthians. In that epistle, Paul contrasts the body of "flesh" which Jesus originally had, "born of the sperm of David" (Christian apologists have trouble explaining why Paul doesn't seem to have heard of the virgin-birth story) until he was "condemned to death" as a criminal, with the "glorified" body Paul says Jesus had after resurrecting (theorizing that we will all make the same transition, in the afterlife). One of his main points is to argue that his own, purely visionary, experiences of the risen Christ are just as good credentials for being an "apostle" as the experiences of those who knew Christ in the "flesh".

This is of course saying the exact opposite of what Doherty wants it to say, so I expected him to attack the consensus view that this is a particularly early text, older than all the Gospels and most of the other Epistles. Instead, Doherty accepts that, but comes out with a redefinition of "flesh": it doesn't mean "flesh", it means some lower-level spiritual realm. This is just beyond ludicrous. I'm sorry, I can't take him seriously either.

What are you talking about? ALL of history is full of people mentioning other people, and we take as our default assumption that people refer to other people because those other people existed.


No, we don't.

We don't 'assume' that Loki really existed. We don't 'assume' that Hades really existed. We don't 'assume' that Angra Mainyu really existed.

What we assume, instead, is that 'religious characters' tend to be rationalisations.


These are just three randomly chosen examples of people who are mentioned in one source, and one source only. Why should we expect people from ancient times to get more than one mention in preserved writings? Most people, obviously, didn't get even one.


Most people aren't argued to have raised the dead, or calmed the seas.


The usual theory for explaining these mentions would be: there was an Athenian citizen named Euthyphro (but we do not assume that Plato is giving a verbatim transcript of his interview with Socrates), a Judean troublemaker named Costabarus (but we know that Josephus might have propaganda reasons for not telling the story exactly), a Hunnish princess named Boreax (but Procopius might not have been well-informed about her exact rank). To suppose anything else would be an extraordinary hypothesis, for which you would need to give good explanations.


Not at all. Sticking with Hebrew, it's not unusual for the 'name' to be nothing of the sort - and to refer to a POSITION that someone occupies within the story. Indeed, the Hebrew scruipture is filled with just such symbols, from Adam to Moses, from Eve to Satan, from Cain to Jacob - characters that are likely to have no historical significance, but that serve powerful symbolic positions, and are called by those names.

And there's where you start running into trouble - because you're arguing for the reality of a JEWISH character, based on a name. You're on a hiding to nothing from the outset.


The burden of proof is always on the side making the positive claim. Show me your evidence of anyone ever saying it.


You're right.

There is no evidence.

We can now assume that 'Jesus' isn't real. Congratulations.


I assume you got interrupted in your posting? You propose that we look at some texts, and then don't actually give any: what are you talking about?


I assumed you'd read it. Not a mistake I'll be making again. Considering your earlier textbook mistakes, it's not a mistake I should have made, for which I apologise.

The Hebrew scripture is practically brimful of accounts of other 'gods' being hollow nothings, mere idols. Thus, at least 23 centuries earlier than you suggest, 'serious scholars' were claiming that certain figures were creations out of whole cloth.


We are not talking about the eventual elaborations to the story (none of which I believe). We are talking about the default assumption that the story got started because there was a human named Jesus


There were at least two 'Jesus' characters alleged for the right time period, along with a host of other Messiahs. The mere existence of the name in circulation is no evidence that the 'Jesus' of the Bible was a real man, even without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo.


...who went around Judea teaching [something or other; figuring out what he actually said is a whole different issue].


...and given the number of other claimants to 'messianic' fulfillment, and the other messiah-like characters extant in current literature of the time, it's entirely likely that the 'messiah' element of the Jesus story came first, based heavily on the zeitgeist motif, and the 'Jesus' name is an afterthought.


Doherty is a random guy on the Internet, who has read a lot but has never been part of the scholarly community.


The long-awaited No True Scotsman. You don't disappoint.


I had never heard of him...

And an appeal to ignorance. I could write your replies for you.

We don't 'assume' that Loki really existed. We don't 'assume' that Hades really existed. We don't 'assume' that Angra Mainyu really existed.
None of those are described as human beings, let alone people from recent history. We DO assume that when people mention other people, that those mentions occur because the people did exist, regardless of whether we think the stories told about those people are plausible.
What we assume, instead, is that 'religious characters' tend to be rationalisations.
Even deities which are clearly personfications of natural forces, abstractions, or archetypes are not created within a span of a generation. Loki, for example, is one instance of a widespread identification of the "wolf" with a Sun-god and/or a Trickster figure: within Indo-European, compare Celtic Lug and Greek Apollo Lukios (Lukios is probably the original name, and Apollo "the destroyer" a euphemism); but we also find luki for "wolf" in Basque (west coast of Europe) and Tungus (east coast of Asia), and in North America, where the wolf is not the most common wild canine, the Trickster is commonly called Wily Coyote. Thus, this figure goes back to the northern steppe-hunters of 30-50,000 years ago: the creation of a new religious character within the span of a single generation would be unprecedented. (Hades "the hidden" is a euphemism (other euphemisms for him were Pluto "the rich" and Dis "the accommodating") for Gormo, another exceedingly ancient figure, much older than the Indo-European family: compare cognates Kulmu in Etruscan, Harma in Finnish, Gul in Turkish, whence English "ghoul"; I do not know the history of Angra Mainyu.)
Most people aren't argued to have raised the dead, or calmed the seas.
So? Lots of people get tall tales of various kinds told about them. The prophet Elisha raised the dead, so we are told; the Tibetan poet-saint Milarepa could control the weather, so we are told; Alexander the Great had an enormous number of implausible stories told about him; all of them were real people however.
Not at all. Sticking with Hebrew, it's not unusual for the 'name' to be nothing of the sort - and to refer to a POSITION that someone occupies within the story. Indeed, the Hebrew scruipture is filled with just such symbols, from Adam to Moses, from Eve to Satan, from Cain to Jacob - characters that are likely to have no historical significance
"Adam and Eve" (a back-projection to the start of history), and "Satan" (not a human at all) are likely to be purely symbolic figures to be sure. But Moses is surely a historic figure (although the band which he led was surely much smaller than is depicted, and most of the stories grossly exaggerated); Cain was the ancestor of the Kenite tribe, which continued to exist into historical times (he was surely not a second-generation human, but may well have murdered his brother); Jacob too I expect was an actual person, however little we may trust the biography we are given.
You are making the same mistake as the 19th century theorizers who thought there was no "king Priam" of "Troy", no "Heracles", etc. Yes there were.
You're right.

There is no evidence.

We can now assume that 'Jesus' isn't real. Congratulations.
??? People SAYING there was a Jesus IS "evidence". That's what you call it when someone testifies. You may disbelieve their testimony, you may call it "poor" evidence, but that's what the word "evidence" means.
Now, will you present your evidence of someone in the early centuries saying there was no such person as Jesus?
I assumed you'd read it.
Yes, I've read the Old Testament. It contains no claims that anybody ever talked about non-existent recent people, nor any claims that anybody ever elaborated a new religious figure all at once.
There were at least two 'Jesus' characters alleged for the right time period, along with a host of other Messiahs.
Why do you think so? Josephus and other sources mention some Jews named Jesus, and some who made Messianic claims: therefore you assume by default that there actually EXISTED such people? That is precisely the assumption that normal people do make all the time, but weren't you just arguing that it's wrong to make such an assumption, wrong even to call such mentions "evidence"?
The long-awaited No True Scotsman. You don't disappoint.
Look, one guy saying things does not constitute a "discussion". For that, you need other people looking at his ideas and making arguments for or against. But when, as in this case, anybody who looks at his ideas can only say, "That's incredibly lame", that does not constitute a "serious" discussion.
And an appeal to ignorance.
You're chastising me for never having heard of this Doherty guy, but why the fuck SHOULD I have heard of him? It is not like he has attracted much of any notice.
OK, now I've looked at what he has to say. It's rubbish. It's craptastic. Do you have anything of substance to say in defense?

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

I think that covers the basics. Just interested in seeing what everyone says. :)
Orthodoxy or death

Orthodoxy or deathThat's a strange expression, Bruce.
http://www.deathtotheworld.com/about/about.html
I have one of the first copies, i think. Gotta go look again.

Even deities which are clearly personfications of natural forces, abstractions, or archetypes are not created within a span of a generation.


Which is both irrelevent, and not something we can rule out in the case of 'Jesus' - indeed, stories that circulate about 'Jesus' were circulating in the same part of the world 600 years before the 'Jesus' story was told. Someof them, several THOUSAND years earlier.


But Moses is surely a historic figure... Cain was the ancestor of the Kenite tribe, ... Jacob too I expect was an actual person,


Moses, Cain and Jacob are very unlikely to be real people. They are metaphors, as you can tell by looking at their names.


You are making the same mistake as the 19th century theorizers who thought there was no "king Priam" of "Troy", no "Heracles", etc. Yes there were.


Not at all. The Hebrew tradition is full of titles-instead-of-names, or names that are part-title, etc. The irony of it is - even if they WERE referring to real people, you'd probably not know from just one source.


??? People SAYING there was a Jesus IS "evidence".


Your head is on fire.

I said it. That's evidence.


Now, will you present your evidence of someone in the early centuries saying there was no such person as Jesus?


You want me to prove a negative? Just checking.


Why do you think so? Josephus and other sources mention some Jews named Jesus, and some who made Messianic claims: therefore you assume by default that there actually EXISTED such people?


Which part of 'alleged' confused you? Try actually responding to the posts.


You're chastising me for never having heard of this Doherty guy, but why the fuck SHOULD I have heard of him?

You claimed that there was no serious debate, and have consequently been cornered on it, eventually admitting that - in fact - you haven't got the faintest fucking clue.

Your ignorance of it, doesn't mean there's no discussion. THAT is why you were 'chastised' for your argument from ignorance.

Just to throw my two cents in, though I haven't done any research into the matter, I think there may have been a Moses, seeing as the period right after the wandering had some documentation. Though I can only cite the History Channel, so you can take that as far as you want to.

As for Cain, Abel, and pretty much all of the Genesis genealogy, those aren't biological, those are lists of physical, geographical locations. I.E. cities, and the progression thereof.

indeed, stories that circulate about 'Jesus' were circulating in the same part of the world 600 years before the 'Jesus' story was told. Someof them, several THOUSAND years earlier.

No, that's not true. Don't tell me you've fallen for Acharya's confabulations?
Moses, Cain and Jacob are very unlikely to be real people. They are metaphors, as you can tell by looking at their names.

Tell me what you think those names mean.
I said it. That's evidence.

When someone speaks of something which is within his personal experience, that is "direct" evidence. When someone relays what he was told by someone who had the direct experience, that is "hearsay" evidence (weaker, obviously). When someone relays what he was told by somebody who was told... and so on back to someone who had experience, that is "multiple hearsay" (considerably weaker, obviously).
In your case, however, you have not even a chain of multiple hearsay.
You want me to prove a negative? Just checking.

No. I want you to prove the POSITIVE: if you claim that anybody ever said to the early Christians something to the effect of, "What are you talking about? There wasn't such a person as Jesus", then tell me which of the people who argued against early Christianity ever said such a thing, and where, in which text, that can be found.
You claimed that there was no serious debate

Yes indeed, and I stand by that. Doherty is confronted by texts which say the exact opposite of what he wants them to say: in 1st Corinthians (as we also find in Galatians and other early text), we see Paul overlaying some new ideology onto the Christian story, derived from his own "revelations" from his personal visions of Christ; and the pre-existing community, followers of the human known as Jesus, are resistant to Paul's claims. You, and Doherty, want the "vision-Christ" to have come first. So what does Doherty do? He just pretends that the texts say the opposite of what they plainly say; he does this by arbitrarily redefining basic words to mean what he would rather have those words mean.
How do people respond to this? By laughing at him. He has not sparked any "serious debate". If you claim that he has, then, since you are making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you: SHOW ME any serious debate.
As for Cain, Abel, and pretty much all of the Genesis genealogy, those aren't biological, those are lists of physical, geographical locations. I.E. cities, and the progression thereof.
No, neither "Cain" nor "Abel" is a geographical location.
There is, to be sure, a section of Genesis 13 (the "Table of Nations") where most of the names are referring to ethnic groups, not individuals (it is still however intended as a large-scale genealogy, explicating the ancestral relationships among these ethnicities to the best of the author's knowledge, and while there are errors, the author does often shrewdly pick out genuine long-range linguistic and biological clades among the human race).

And perhaps the transcendental enlightenment of buddhists wouldn't really fit into the parameters we've largely been discussing. Of course, those goalposts have drifted a little, but I think we've roughly been aiming at the "burning bush, Mufasa-breaking-through-the-clouds" arena.

Okay. I can agree with that. Let us limit our discussion to those ecstactic visions that involve something that should be observable by our five senses but is only apparent to the religious visionary.

It is or it isn't. There is no 'could be'.

The best you can argue is that we don't yet KNOW if it is or it isn't... but it is already so. Or it is already NOT so. Whichever.

I can agree with that too. We can assume that all things must either exist in one way or another, or they don't. And that we are limited in certain ways as to our ability to say with certainty which are which.

Like measuring the speed of light is over too small a range because it only accounts for photons?

No. I'm talking about repeatability of scientific experiments. Peer review. There hasn't been any for this hypothesis. So, the entire body of data from which we are attempting to make a general claim is too small: i.e one experiment.

Pretty sure something about it was at the end of the article I linked.

Found it. Thanks.

EDIT: So, rather than say that we have "no objection to claiming that religious people are deluded", we could say that we have "no objection to claiming that those who see ecstactic visions that should be empirically observable to all but are not can be said to be delusional".

Just to throw my two cents in, though I haven't done any research into the matter, I think there may have been a Moses, seeing as the period right after the wandering had some documentation. Though I can only cite the History Channel, so you can take that as far as you want to.

As for Cain, Abel, and pretty much all of the Genesis genealogy, those aren't biological, those are lists of physical, geographical locations. I.E. cities, and the progression thereof.

There may have been a Moses. Sure. There is a possible Egyptian warlord (Mousos, from what I recall) who led armies in subjugation of Cush - but he's about 400 years too early.

There are the accounts of the Hyksos pharaohs. There could be a 'Moses' character in there, but it would make something of a liar of the Exodus storyline.

There's no corroboration for Exodus. Even the Pentateuch is unreliable. It's alleged to have been written by 'Moses'... and yet it describes his funeral.

The earliest Hebrew accounts weren't actually written for another half a millennium... so their value as testimony is weak, at best.

No, that's not true. Don't tell me you've fallen for Acharya's confabulations?


Awesome - you just committed the same crime. Perfect example.

You have referred (I assume you were talking about 'Acharya S') to someone by their 'name', when it isn't actually a name at all.

You have referred to a teacher, or instructor... a rabbi maybe... by their title... which is, of course, nonsensical. You have made the point I was making about titles-used-as-names perfectly.


Tell me what you think those names mean.


Allegedly from 'drawn out', Moses is a nonsense. It makes no sense that the Egyptians would have given an adoptive son a foreign name, so we have to assume that Moses is actually an Egyptian name - in which case, it would merely mean 'born'.

Which makes no sense, either. So - either it's theft of an Egyptian story, and the name of the god has been left off (like 'ra-mses'), or the name was added AFTER the fact, to the myth of the child 'drawn out' of the water.

Cain probably means 'metal-smith', which fits with his storied role as a father or artisans. It makes more sense than it would in Hebrew, since it actually ties to the story - and, indeed, works as a title applied after the fact.

Jacob is obviously a title applied later, the story of the baby born clutching the 'heel', as a metaphor for the son that always 'follows' the other.



When someone speaks of something which is within his personal experience, that is "direct" evidence.


Of which there is none, in the Bible.


When someone relays what he was told by someone who had the direct experience, that is "hearsay" evidence (weaker, obviously). When someone relays what he was told by somebody who was told... and so on back to someone who had experience, that is "multiple hearsay" (considerably weaker, obviously).


Which is the very BEST we can hope for, in Biblical scripture. ANd better than we have for non-Biblical corroboration.


In your case, however, you have not even a chain of multiple hearsay.


Which puts me in the same category as most of the Biblical text, and all of the post-Biblical 'corroboration'.


No. I want you to prove the POSITIVE: if you claim that anybody ever said to the early Christians something to the effect of, "What are you talking about? There wasn't such a person as Jesus", then tell me which of the people who argued against early Christianity ever said such a thing, and where, in which text, that can be found.


Who would have 'argued'? You've got this tiny group of cultists - in an era filled with such cults. The only mention of 'Jesus' is in the texts HELD by those cults. Who else do you think would have heard of him? Much less, cared to write anything about yet-ANOTHER-messianic-cult?


He has not sparked any "serious debate". If you claim that he has, then, since you are making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you: SHOW ME any serious debate.


You can't discount the contest over historicity because you object to how one phrase is interpreted in Paul's text.


No, neither "Cain" nor "Abel" is a geographical location.


Actually, both Cain and Abel COULD be geographical locations, although, of course, that might not have been their actual names.

Actually, both Cain and Abel COULD be geographical locations, although, of course, that might not have been their actual names.

Cain and Abel actually are metaphors for nomadic and sedimentary life. Additionally, Cain is attributed to the Kennite tribe.

Cain and Abel actually are metaphors for nomadic and sedimentary life. Additionally, Cain is attributed to the Kennite tribe.

Indeed. The Cain and Abel story is repeated, later in the scripture, with Esau and Jacob - one is a man of the fields, the other is the home-dweller. The specifics change, but the general myth is still there.

The Hebrew oral history tradition is subtle and multi-layered. It's hard to be sure which 'layer' is put down first. It's likely that the name 'Cain' was stolen, because of the metal technology of non-nomadic peoples, at a point when 'Israel' was still a group of sheep-farmers bumbling around in the dust. 'Cain' would then come to represent urban living, and, metaphorically, the 'death' of the nomads.

My paternal grandmother was Jewish, but was disowned by her family for marrying a gentile. My father grew up eating Jewish food, but not following any of the customs or practices. My mother's family was nominally C of E, but they never attended church, said grace or believed in god/s as far as I can ascertain. As a result, my parents were not at all religious, so they never took us to church. We had friends that went to church, I did voluntary RE at school for a couple of years & my parents would discuss religions with us, so I was aware of it. Essentially I grew up with a complete lack of religious beliefs and have seen no reason to change since.

My paternal grandmother was Jewish, but was disowned by her family for marrying a gentile. My father grew up eating Jewish food, but not following any of the customs or practices. My mother's family was nominally C of E, but they never attended church, said grace or believed in god/s as far as I can ascertain. As a result, my parents were not at all religious, so they never took us to church. We had friends that went to church, I did voluntary RE at school for a couple of years & my parents would discuss religions with us, so I was aware of it. Essentially I grew up with a complete lack of religious beliefs and have seen no reason to change since.

sounds like me, without the Jewish bit. I grew up with parents who just answered questions when I asked, and a mother who taught me about religion when it influenced other things in my life.

Can't say much for your avatar though.

sounds like me, without the Jewish bit. I grew up with parents who just answered questions when I asked, and a mother who taught me about religion when it influenced other things in my life.

Can't say much for your avatar though.

I like it. :p

Awesome - you just committed the same crime.
CRIME??
You have referred (I assume you were talking about 'Acharya S') to someone by their 'name', when it isn't actually a name at all.
It's what this person is usually called. There actually is such a person: you don't dispute that?
You are evading the question, which is whether this Acharya S (a confabulator who seems incapable of saying a true thing) is the source of your claims.
You have made the point I was making about titles-used-as-names perfectly.
I'm not sure what "point" you are trying to make. You have frequently pointed out that names are often derived from occupational titles, which I haven't responded to because I thought that was perfectly well-known, and not relevant to anything we were arguing about. There are lots of people named "Baker", who don't work with ovens, or "George", although they don't work any soil, Greek or otherwise. They are real people nonetheless, and it is perfectly straightforward to infer that the original bearers of these names (if you trace back the ancestry of the Baker families, or trace back this-George-was-named-for-soandso-who-was-named-for-etc to the beginning) were bakers and farmers by trade.
Allegedly from 'drawn out', Moses is a nonsense.
The etymology is bogus, which is precisely why it is more reasonable to assume it is someone's actual name rather than the story-teller's invention. Something invented would make sense; REAL names, on the other hand, once they have been in circulation a while, often get re-pronounced and distorted until the origin is wholly unclear from the final form. I am named "Bob" which has nothing to do with the verbs "to bob" (either "bounce up and down, especially in water" or "cut hair short"): it is an alliterative variant of "Rob", an abbreviated form of "Robert", an evolved pronunciation of "Rubrecht", from second element "bright" and first element obscure ("honor"?)
Cain probably means 'metal-smith'
But qayin was such an archaic word for "smith" by the time Genesis was written (found in related Semitic languages, but not used in Biblical Hebrew) that the author of Genesis has no clue what it means, and invents a bogus etymology, just like we find with "Moses" and "Seth" and "Noah" and "Jacob". The name makes no sense in the context of the story: Cain is depicted as a crop-farmer, not a metal-worker. The Cainites are consistently depicted as friends and allies, not enemies, of the Hebrews; as nomadic herdsmen like the Hebrews, not city-dwellers or even crop-farmers. If the Cainites were like the "tinkers", wandering around selling little household wares, we might assume they got called "the smiths" for what they do-- but that isn't who they were. The simple explanation is: the Cainites were so-called because one of their prominent ancestors was named Qayin, presumably because he worked as a smith, a long time ago (just like the various "Smith" families of today); they had a tradition that their ancestor was one of the first humans on earth because, like lots of ethnic groups, they had an exaggerated notion of their own importance in the history of the human race; they had a tradition that their ancestor murdered his own brother, BECAUSE HE DID (why would they make it up???)
Now, in the story we have now, the motivation for the killing (Abel is a virtuous animal herder, whom God of course likes better; Cain is a crop-farmer, so he murders because, well, you know what those people are like) is obviously derived from the propagandistic needs of the Israelites. But the point is: that is not the source of either the name, or the original story.
Jacob is obviously a title applied later, the story of the baby born clutching the 'heel', as a metaphor for the son that always 'follows' the other.
You are taking the bogus etymology seriously. The only reason we get these "explanations" in the text of what a name means is because the name is so antique it no longer makes any sense. Archaeologists have found that in Ebla c. 2000 BC Ya'aqob was a reasonably common personal name; the simple explanation for why the name shows up in the Hebrew ancestry is because one of their ancestors was named that. This has nothing to do, of course, with the issue of how much or how little of the stories told about him bear any resemblance to the actual biography.
Who would have 'argued'? You've got this tiny group of cultists - in an era filled with such cults. The only mention of 'Jesus' is in the texts HELD by those cults. Who else do you think would have heard of him? Much less, cared to write anything about yet-ANOTHER-messianic-cult?
You are sadly uninformed if you do not know that the Christian movement achieved a great deal of notoriety quite early on, and attracted disparaging comments and counterarguments from several authors.
You can't discount the contest over historicity because you object to how one phrase is interpreted in Paul's text.
No, it is not "one phrase", but rather the entire discussion ranging over several chapters which Doherty is utterly clueless about. It is not just that he is a little off in his reading: he is misreading the text to say 180-degrees opposite from what it says. He is reading the Gettysburg Address and concluding that the preservation of the Union was an unimportant matter according to Lincoln; he is reading Dubya's speeches and concluding that Bush was an ardent opponent of the war in Iraq; he is reading GraveNIdle's posts and concluding that GnI is a Biblical fundamentalist.
Actually, both Cain and Abel COULD be geographical locations, although, of course, that might not have been their actual names.
This sentence I cannot puzzle out at all. They might be the "real" names of geographical locations which everybody calls something else? Like, Christ is "really" one of the United States, except we pronounce it "Wyoming"?

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Raised moderate but regularly churchgoing Roman Catholic. Stopped believing during adolescence in favour of Deism and Agnosticism.

2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?

I am now a devout Independent Christian, though I theologically flirt with Unitarian Christianity and generally describe myself as a Christian Humanist and Liberal Roman Catholic as of very recently.

At the lowest point of my agnosticity, A Christian freind told me that since I was raised Catholic, I was somehow bound to embrace my native faith. Though I disagreed completely with her logic (and still do), it did get me thinking about faith and reconsidering my position. I read some of the Summa, became a Deist, an irreligious Theist, and then, after some personal experiences (I didn't meet God), and introspection, professed Christianity once more.

I am a very theologically liberal Christian: I don't believe in Hell, I don't recognise the Bible as inerrant, I believe in Theistic Evolution, and believe many other religions to be just as legitimate as my own.

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

I was temporarily Agnostic not so much because I disagreed with religious practice or couldn't believe that God could make a flawed world, but because I saw God's existence as described in Scripture as being irrational.

CRIME??


Ooh, that was worth all caps.


It's what this person is usually called.


No, it isn't.


There actually is such a person: you don't dispute that?


I do, indeed, dispute that.

If I say I've been reading a book by 'guru', you'd almost certainly ask me WHICH guru. If I said I'd been studying under 'teacher', you'd ask which one.

There is your 'crime'.

"Acharya S" is meaningful, if vague. "Ive read a book by Acharya" is meaningless mumbling.


You are evading the question, which is whether this Acharya S (a confabulator who seems incapable of saying a true thing) is the source of your claims.


No, Acharya S is not the source of my claims.


I'm not sure what "point" you are trying to make. You have frequently pointed out that names are often derived from occupational titles,


No, I haven't done that, at all.

I've pointed out that characters (both mundane and supernatural) are very often referred to by their 'job' (or some other kind of title) in the Biblical scriptures, rather than by their names.

'Satan' is not someone's name - it's what 'he' does.


...The etymology is bogus, which is precisely why it is more reasonable to assume it is someone's actual name


Obviously - completely made-up name that corresponds to story elements... MUST be a real person. Unless you hold with that 'logic' thing.


But [I]qayin[I] was such an archaic word for "smith" by the time Genesis was written (found in related Semitic languages, but not used in Biblical Hebrew) that the author of Genesis has no clue what it means


Because it had been circling in oral tradition for 800 years by the time it was written?


Cain is depicted as a crop-farmer, not a metal-worker.


Cain is the 'father of metal workers'. Genesis 4:22


The Cainites are consistently depicted as friends and allies, not enemies, of the Hebrews; as nomadic herdsmen like the Hebrews, not city-dwellers


Genesis 4:17


...they had a tradition that their ancestor murdered his own brother, BECAUSE HE DID (why would they make it up???)


A case for war? A claim for superiority? Given the genocides in the history, some kind of 'excuse' is handy as for why it's okay to kill the infidels.


You are sadly uninformed if you do not know that the Christian movement achieved a great deal of notoriety quite early on, and attracted disparaging comments and counterarguments from several authors.


You are either incredibly uninformed, or incredibly dishonest, if you are trying to claim that there's anything like 'contemporary' comment or counterargument.


This sentence I cannot puzzle out at all. They might be the "real" names of geographical locations which everybody calls something else? Like, Christ is "really" one of the United States, except we pronounce it "Wyoming"?

If I tell you I went to the Big Apple or the Windy City this last weekend, there's a fair chance you'd know where I had been. If we were talking about the 'modern Babylon' (or even just Babylon) there's a fair chance you'd know which nation I was (actually) talking about.

What we 'call' a place, isn't necessarily it's 'name'.

1) What is your background with the religion?

I was born into Catholicism, though I'm not an "every-week" churchgoer.

2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?

Because for all the terrible things that are done in the name of religion, I've seen with my eyes an equal number of good things. One only needs to look at the number of charitable organizations funded or sponsored by the Vatican to see a fraction of those things.

I think the real reason I'm a Christian, though, is because of the look in someone's eyes when they look up at the cross at the front of the church. Say what you will about proving the Bible's stories true or false, there's certainly nothing false about that look and the feelings behind it.

Sorry to be slow in responding but I have not been well.
Ooh, that was worth all caps.

It was one of your more puzzling utterances: intending to refer to "Acharya S", I said "Acharya", and you called it a "crime"??? I am still waiting for you to explain what you even mean?
[Tmutarakhan] It's what this person is usually called
No, it isn't.

I have never heard this person called anything else. If you know his/her IRL name, whoop-de-do for you, but most people don't. Of course I assumed it to be a nom de plume, but I had not heard the derivation before (and if Acharya S is the only source for the claim that acharya is a title for "teacher", I would not believe it without confirmation, never having heard any teacher called so).
I do, indeed, dispute that.

Dispute that an actual human wrote the "Acharya S" mendacities?
No, Acharya S is not the source of my claims.

That sentence should be followed by "My source was (.....)" Otherwise your claim just stands naked.
Obviously - completely made-up name that corresponds to story elements...

But no: it doesn't really. The "etymology" is just a grasping-at-straws by an author who has no clue whatsoever what Mosheh means: it is NOT a regular derivative from m-sh-y "to extract", nor is that verb one that would normally be used for fishing things out of the water: it is not the verb that is used in the story itself, just a couple sentences earlier. (An appropriate derivative of m-sh-y, the passive participle Nimshiy "extracted", does in fact occur as a name: the father of Jehu, who seized the throne of Israel by killing Ahab's children; but since no story is told about Nimshiy, we are left to guess why he would be called that: a difficult birth requiring a forceps, or a caesarean operation? nothing like the Moses story, in any case.)
The "etymology" for Qayin, "I have produced a son..." is similarly straw-grasping (the verb "to produce" is used for tool-fashioning, not for child-procreation) by an author who doesn't know what that name originally meant, either.
Because it had been circling in oral tradition for 800 years by the time it was written?

The Cain story would have been circulating AMONG THE CAINITES for all those years. The depiction of Cain as a crop-farmer, with the propagandistic motive (he kills Abel because Abel is a virtuous God-fearing herdsmen, and you all know what those evil crop-farmers are like), is obviously the last element to be added to the story, added by someone who doesn't know what the name means and by someone who doesn't identify Cain as an ancestor. When it was a Cainite story: he is remembered as "the smith" because that is what he did and whatever other personal name he had was forgotten long ago; he was depicted as one of the first human beings because the Cainites like a lot of ethnic groups had an exaggerated picture of their own importance in the history of the human species; and he was said to have killed his own brother BECAUSE HE DID.
You are thinking that the metaphorical elements are where the story started: that is exactly backwards from the truth.

Cain is the 'father of metal workers'. Genesis 4:22

Tubal-Qayin is an unrelated figure, spliced into the genealogy here because of the occurrence of the same "smith" element in the name. The Tubalites, as we know from the Assyrians, lived southwest of the Muschians (ancestral to Armenians), and did a lot of metal-working because there are rich gold/silver/copper veins in the hills downslope from Ararat.
The Cainites, migrating up from Sinai around the same time as the Israelites, but still preserving a separate ethnic identity as late as c. 590 BC (when they are praised by Jeremiah to their strict adherence to their ancient ways), were nomadic herdsmen, culturally similar to the Israelites, and without much of an opportunity for large involvement in the metal-trade (their ancestor is presumably remembered just as "the smith" because he was the only smith among that people in that generation; as opposed to "Tubal the smith", whose personal name is also recorded because he was just one of many smiths around).
Genesis 4:17

You were misunderstanding: when I was speaking of the "Cainites", I meant the HISTORICAL Cainites, the ethnic group living within Judah; not the Genesis author's projections about antediluvian times.
You are either incredibly uninformed, or incredibly dishonest, if you are trying to claim that there's anything like 'contemporary' comment or counterargument.

Within the first hundred years or so after the crucifixion: Emperor Nero made them public scapegoats, Emperor Domitian made specific decrees against them, Pliny corresponded with Emperor Trajan about the scope of legal restrictions against them, but Emperor Septimius Severus put Jesus in his "gallery of sages" along with Socrates, Apollonius of Tyana, etc.; Pliny along with Suetonius and Tacitus records disparaging opinions of them and their origin, and Celsus published a full-scale polemic against them; portions of the material in Toldoth Yeshu and the Talmud also go back this far.

I have never heard this person called anything else. If you know his/her IRL name, whoop-de-do for you, but most people don't. Of course I assumed it to be a nom de plume, but I had not heard the derivation before (and if Acharya S is the only source for the claim that acharya is a title for "teacher", I would not believe it without confirmation, never having heard any teacher called so).


Again, your ignorance is irrelevent, but shows the point I was making elsewhere. You don't KNOW that 'Acharya' is a title, so you used it as though it were a name - chopping off the "S" that would have made it at least a little more meaningful.


Dispute that an actual human wrote the "Acharya S" mendacities?


No, I dispute that 'Acharya' is a meaningful term, here. There is no person called "Acharya"... and, at the same time, there are many. It's meaningless in that form.


That sentence should be followed by "My source was (.....)" Otherwise your claim just stands naked.


I'm not going to write a bibliography, here. Acharya S isn't my source.


But no: it doesn't really. The "etymology" is just a grasping-at-straws by an author who has no clue whatsoever what Mosheh means: it is NOT a regular derivative from m-sh-y "to extract", nor is that verb one that would normally be used for fishing things out of the water: it is not the verb that is used in the story itself, just a couple sentences earlier. (An appropriate derivative of m-sh-y, the passive participle Nimshiy "extracted", does in fact occur as a name: the father of Jehu, who seized the throne of Israel by killing Ahab's children; but since no story is told about Nimshiy, we are left to guess why he would be called that: a difficult birth requiring a forceps, or a caesarean operation? nothing like the Moses story, in any case.)
The "etymology" for Qayin, "I have produced a son..." is similarly straw-grasping (the verb "to produce" is used for tool-fashioning, not for child-procreation) by an author who doesn't know what that name originally meant, either.


All of which seems to agree with the fact that the names of Cain and Moses are obviously stolen from other traditions, where 'geneologies' were stitched together in whatever fashion was useful.


The Cain story would have been circulating AMONG THE CAINITES for all those years. The depiction of Cain as a crop-farmer, with the propagandistic motive (he kills Abel because Abel is a virtuous God-fearing herdsmen, and you all know what those evil crop-farmers are like), is obviously the last element to be added to the story, added by someone who doesn't know what the name means and by someone who doesn't identify Cain as an ancestor. When it was a Cainite story: he is remembered as "the smith" because that is what he did and whatever other personal name he had was forgotten long ago; he was depicted as one of the first human beings because the Cainites like a lot of ethnic groups had an exaggerated picture of their own importance in the history of the human species;


You were doing quite well this far...


...and he was said to have killed his own brother BECAUSE HE DID.


...and then you did this.


Tubal-Qayin is an unrelated figure, spliced into the genealogy here


Which is actually somewhat irrelevent... except in as much as it might explain why, when the narrative seems to suggest Seth as the obvious firstborn, the story instead diverts through Cain.


Within the first hundred years or so after the crucifixion: Emperor Nero made them public scapegoats, Emperor Domitian made specific decrees against them, Pliny corresponded with Emperor Trajan about the scope of legal restrictions against them, but Emperor Septimius Severus put Jesus in his "gallery of sages" along with Socrates, Apollonius of Tyana, etc.; Pliny along with Suetonius and Tacitus records disparaging opinions of them and their origin, and Celsus published a full-scale polemic against them; portions of the material in Toldoth Yeshu and the Talmud also go back this far.

Which isn't a lot like 'contemporary' at all. Three generations may be an improvement on Old Testement word-to-page turnaround, but it's hardly eyewitness news.

You don't KNOW that 'Acharya' is a title, so you used it as though it were a name.
I STILL don't "know" that acharya is a title (what's the source for that claim?). All I know is that the author of this widely-circulated list of mendacious claims is self-identified as "Acharya S", and I am not particularly interested in what the source of that self-appelation is (I never did assume it was a name the person uses in real-life).
- chopping off the "S" that would have made it at least a little more meaningful
How much more "meaningful" did it need to be? You knew EXACTLY who I was referring to, with no more ambiguity than if I'd said "the Pope", or if I had made some misspelling like "Barock Obama".
There is no person called "Acharya"... and, at the same time, there are many.
I know of only one. Can you point me to any others?
I'm not going to write a bibliography, here. Acharya S isn't my source.
You made a claim which I regard as completely false. If you refuse to name any source to back it up, then I regard your claim as abandoned.
All of which seems to agree with the fact that the names of Cain and Moses are obviously stolen from other traditions
STOLEN??? I am still trying to figure out why a typo in "Acharya S" is a "crime", and now I am puzzled why you think there is something wrongful about passing on stories.
You were doing quite well this far...
...and then you did this.
Why do you think the Cainites would tell a story about their eponymous ancestor killing his brother? There is a very simple explanation. So far there is no other explanation offered.
Which is actually somewhat irrelevent... except in as much as it might explain why, when the narrative seems to suggest Seth as the obvious firstborn, the story instead diverts through Cain.
It is pieced together from multiple sources. Nobody except the batshit-crazy fundamentalists fail to understand that much. There are several points where the stitching-together is not totally coherent.
Which isn't a lot like 'contemporary' at all. Three generations may be an improvement on Old Testement word-to-page turnaround, but it's hardly eyewitness news.
Nero singled them out as scapegoats while people who remembered the crucifixion were not only still alive, but still rather young.

You knew


I knew because this is a field I'm somewhat versed in, and it was apparent from the context who you (probably) would mean.


...EXACTLY who I was referring to, with no more ambiguity than if I'd said "the Pope", or if I had made some misspelling like "Barock Obama".


No, not at all. It would be a parallel closer to you TALKING about The Pope, but referring to him as "that Cardinal guy".


You made a claim which I regard as completely false. If you refuse to name any source to back it up, then I regard your claim as abandoned.


You can 'regard' it as you like. Apparently, the difference between us - which you refer to as there being no serious discussion - is that I've researched from many, many sources.


Nero singled them out as scapegoats while people who remembered the crucifixion were not only still alive, but still rather young.

Good. Show me the text.

One would think that If Jesus existed and was crucified it would be something like this:

Scholars do not know the exact year or date of Jesus' birth or death. The Gospel of Matthew places Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC/BCE,[19] and the Gospel of Luke describes the birth as taking place during the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea in 6 AD/CE.[20] Scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE.[21] Due to a fourth century arrangement to offset the pagan Roman Saturnalia festival, the birth of Jesus is celebrated on December 25. Since the thirteenth century, the celebration of Christmas ("Christ's Mass") has become an important Christian tradition.[22] The common Western standard for numbering years, in which the current year is 2009, is based on an early medieval attempt to count the years from Jesus' birth.

Jesus' ministry followed that of John the Baptist.[23] The Gospels, Josephus,[24] and Tacitus name Pontius Pilate as the Roman prefect who had Jesus crucified, and Pilate was prefect of Judea between 26 and 36 AD/CE.[25] Most Christians commemorate Jesus' crucifixion on Good Friday and celebrate his resurrection on Easter Sunday.

Because for all the terrible things that are done in the name of religion, I've seen with my eyes an equal number of good things.

So you've seen more good things than the countless executions, torture victims, war victims etc? I doubt that.

Scholars do not know the exact year or date of Jesus' birth or death. The Gospel of Matthew places Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC/BCE,[19] and the Gospel of Luke describes the birth as taking place during the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea in 6 AD/CE.[20] Scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE.[21]

Contradiction much?

So you've seen more good things than the countless executions, torture victims, war victims etc? I doubt that.

Man bites dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)).

In other words, you learn about the deeds of Torquemada in history class, but you don't hear about the million unrecorded acts of human kindness inspired by religion, simply because the latter are common while the former are not.

How many terrible things have been done in the name of some atheist or anti-Christian name. The attrocities of the French Revolution, Communist Russia, Communist China. Nazis saw Christianity as a deferred form of Judaism. And thats just in two and a half centuries. What have Christians done in the name of Christianity in that time period. The Inquisition is nothing next to that.

Lets face it. Humanity is screwed up.

Contradiction much?

So he was born somewhere between 4 and 6. I think this has more to do with the changing of the calendar. Not to mention his parents were in fear for their lives.

The attrocities of the French Revolution,

...had nothing to do with religion either way outside of wanting to tax catholic priests. And it wasnt on the grounds of being "anti-Christian".

Communist Russia, Communist China.

Involved believing a dogmatic set of guidlines based on no evidence or rationality. Same problem religion has.

Nazis saw Christianity as a deferred form of Judaism.

Which is why Hitler claimed to be a Christian, right? And why they didnt round up Christians for extermination, right? And why the whole reasoning, ideas, and execution that went into the Holocaust was based on the Catholic Church's reasoning, right? And why the Church backed Hitler and helped many Nazi officers escape to South America, right? And...

You get my point.

What have Christians done in the name of Christianity in that time period. The Inquisition is nothing next to that.


This is lulz.

I knew because this is a field I'm somewhat versed in, and it was apparent from the context who you (probably) would mean.
It is typical among the fans of "Acharya S" to omit the "S", for example (http://www.truthbeknown.com/radio.htm):

Beginning August 7, 2008, Acharya will be co-hosting her own show with Robert W. Morgan...
Acharya appeared on Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio" show...
Acharya appeared on the Jeff Rense show...
Acharya will appear on the "Robin Zodiac Show"...
Acharya appeared on Rob McConnell's show...
The title of Acharya's segment is "The Nightmare of Religion." ...
Acharya's new interview with Abraxas/Miguel is archived at The Acharya Chronicles...
Acharya appeared on the public radio show "Camp Lovewave"...
Acharya appeared on the Alan Colmes Radio Show out of New York City...
Acharya's various appearances on Abraxas's "Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis" can be found at The Acharya Chronicles...
Acharya S appeared with Dr. Robert Price
Occurrences with the "S" appears to be outnumbered about six to one by occurrences without.
No, not at all. It would be a parallel closer to you TALKING about The Pope, but referring to him as "that Cardinal guy".
In what way would that be remotely similar?
You can 'regard' it as you like. Apparently, the difference between us - which you refer to as there being no serious discussion - is that I've researched from many, many sources.
Look, sonny, I have been voraciously reading on this topic, including reading the original texts in the original languages, for longer than you have even been alive. The Hebrew text of the OT is available online because *I* typed it all into a computer in the 1970's (in the JPS text of the Tanakh, you will find my name mentioned in the introduction). Don't try playing condescension with me, it doesn't work.
When you say things like "the Jesus stories had been told for thousands of years before", it sounds like you are just regurgitating from sources like "Pagan Christs" and Acharya S, which are the atheist equivalent of creation science: blatantly dishonest misrepresentations of what the ancient texts actually have to say. I don't doubt that you can find "many, many" such regurgitations, but if you want to stand by any of them, you need to NAME one of your sources that you consider to be non-craptastic. Otherwise there is nothing of substance to discuss. No, I do not consider the discussion we have had up to this point to be "serious", because on your side you have not been willing to answer points substantively: you cite Doherty, and then when I point out how thoroughly wrong-headed his discussion of 1st Corinthians is, your response is basically "Nuh-UHHH!"
Good. Show me the text.
I do not have Tacitus in front of me, but the tenor of it is: "The founder of the Christian name was put to death as a malefactor in the reign of Tiberius, but although the superstitious was thus checked at the time, it broke out again, within the capital city, which always attracts whatever is most loathsome and poisonous from the provinces. The Christians were guilty of a general contempt for all mankind, but their punishment appeared designed more to glut one man's cruelty than to answer for any specific crimes."
If your theory were correct, we should expect more like: "The Christians invented absurd and poisonous slanders, claiming that a holy man of theirs had been put to death for no reason, when no such thing had ever occurred..."

It is typical among the fans of "Acharya S" to omit the "S", for example (http://www.truthbeknown.com/radio.htm):

Occurrences with the "S" appears to be outnumbered about six to one by occurrences without.

In what way would that be remotely similar?

Look, sonny, I have been voraciously reading on this topic, including reading the original texts in the original languages, for longer than you have even been alive. The Hebrew text of the OT is available online because *I* typed it all into a computer in the 1970's (in the JPS text of the Tanakh, you will find my name mentioned in the introduction). Don't try playing condescension with me, it doesn't work.
When you say things like "the Jesus stories had been told for thousands of years before", it sounds like you are just regurgitating from sources like "Pagan Christs" and Acharya S, which are the atheist equivalent of creation science: blatantly dishonest misrepresentations of what the ancient texts actually have to say. I don't doubt that you can find "many, many" such regurgitations, but if you want to stand by any of them, you need to NAME one of your sources that you consider to be non-craptastic. Otherwise there is nothing of substance to discuss. No, I do not consider the discussion we have had up to this point to be "serious", because on your side you have not been willing to answer points substantively: you cite Doherty, and then when I point out how thoroughly wrong-headed his discussion of 1st Corinthians is, your response is basically "Nuh-UHHH!"

I do not have Tacitus in front of me, but the tenor of it is: "The founder of the Christian name was put to death as a malefactor in the reign of Tiberius, but although the superstitious was thus checked at the time, it broke out again, within the capital city, which always attracts whatever is most loathsome and poisonous from the provinces. The Christians were guilty of a general contempt for all mankind, but their punishment appeared designed more to glut one man's cruelty than to answer for any specific crimes."
If your theory were correct, we should expect more like: "The Christians invented absurd and poisonous slanders, claiming that a holy man of theirs had been put to death for no reason, when no such thing had ever occurred..."

Thank you for this. I have to echo your reaction. I also don't understand what anyone would have to gain by inventing Jesus. Why pick this name out of the thousands out there? If they were going to invent him why not make him Roman or Greek? Also who would be capable of inventing this guy and maintaining the lie for over 2000 years? If the answer is the church they didn't even exist until after his death. Also pretty much each one of the apostles were put to death, surely one of them would have renounced a lie of this magnitude. You would barley be able to tell the stories with a straight face.

In what way would that be remotely similar?


Because, by saying 'The Pope' you can be pretty certain which one of the highest echelon of the Roman church I am talking about. By saying 'cardinal', it could be any one of a number of cardinals or still-living-former-cardinals.


Look, sonny,


Patronising? That's a promising start - I wonder where you're going to go with this?


...I have been voraciously reading on this topic, including reading the original texts in the original languages, for longer than you have even been alive.


Ah, the old "I am the voice of authority because I'm (probably) older than you" line of attack. Nice. Explains the 'patron-ising', too.


...The Hebrew text of the OT is available online because *I* typed it all into a computer in the 1970's (in the JPS text of the Tanakh, you will find my name mentioned in the introduction).


Then I owe you thanks, since I've used that particular resource a number of times.


...Don't try playing condescension with me, it doesn't work.


Oh, the irony! Physician?

You claimed there has been no serious debate. That is ignorance on your part. That's not me being condescending - your faults are not my doing.

I'm sure your little appeal to authority is great. Yes, you're the daddy of the online tanakh, almost half a century ago. And? What bearing does that have, in your mind? Because in the real world, you typing a bunch of stuff into a computer somewhwere between 30 and 40 years ago, just doesn't equate to you being necessarily well versed even in THAT side of the 'debate'.

It just means you can type. Or could, a while back.


When you say things like "the Jesus stories had been told for thousands of years before", it sounds like you are just regurgitating from sources like "Pagan Christs" and Acharya S,


Which I said, I'm not.


...which are the atheist equivalent of creation science: blatantly dishonest misrepresentations of what the ancient texts actually have to say.


Dishonest is an interesting word to use there. In what way is it dishonest to say that... for example... Abraham is said to have (almost?) sacrificed his son?


I don't doubt that you can find "many, many" such regurgitations, but if you want to stand by any of them, you need to NAME one of your sources that you consider to be non-craptastic. Otherwise there is nothing of substance to discuss. No, I do not consider the discussion we have had up to this point to be "serious",


You've been fairly obvious about it. You claimed that there had been no serious debate from a position of ignorance, and seem to have considered crossing your arms and holding that line to have been pretty much the sum and substance of your 'side'. You are certainly not having a serious debate, I agree.

And for the same reasons that you apparently believe there has never been one. There's none so blind, and all that.


...because on your side you have not been willing to answer points substantively: you cite Doherty, and then when I


Doherty, that you had never heard of. Your attempts to find fault in Doherty AFTER it was explained to you do not offset the massive chink in your armour - your claims of lack of debate can largely be explained by virtue of the fact that you just don't know, and won't listen.


...point out how thoroughly wrong-headed his discussion of 1st Corinthians is, your response is basically "Nuh-UHHH!"


That's a little intellectually dishonest, isn't it? 'Nuh uhhh' would be a denial, or an attempt to defend that particular wording. I did neither. Instead, I'm suggesting that you having a disagreement with one phrasing, one concept, one chapter, even - doesn't invalidate an entire work.


I do not have Tacitus in front of me, but the tenor of it is: "The founder of the Christian name was put to death as a malefactor in the reign of Tiberius, but although the superstitious was thus checked at the time, it broke out again, within the capital city, which always attracts whatever is most loathsome and poisonous from the provinces. The Christians were guilty of a general contempt for all mankind, but their punishment appeared designed more to glut one man's cruelty than to answer for any specific crimes."
If your theory were correct, we should expect more like: "The Christians invented absurd and poisonous slanders, claiming that a holy man of theirs had been put to death for no reason, when no such thing had ever occurred..."

And which part of 'contemporary' is it that is confusing you, now?

You talked about Nero - and yet you've no evidence, so you fall back on a much LATER source. Sure, this one is 'independent' - indeed, it's so independent that the author wasn't even born when the events are supposed to have transpired, and isn't even relaying information he could have got from a first-hand witness. Pretty independent, I'll grant - and pretty useless.

Thank you for this. I have to echo your reaction. I also don't understand what anyone would have to gain by inventing Jesus.


What does anyone have to gain from 'inventing' any god?

Or - are you here admitting that all stories of gods are equal and equally true?


Why pick this name out of the thousands out there?


Which name? Jesus? There were at least two stories of messianic figures, at that time, in that place, by that name... and several others of different names. There are a number of reasons why that name MIGHT have been chosen, not least being that it was the only one that bridged two separate sets of stories, allowing an accretion of myth.


If they were going to invent him why not make him Roman or Greek?


'Jesus' is Greek.

Or do you mean - why make the character Greek, if you were going to write it? Obviously - because writing it for Hellenic Jews, they'd know little details like the Throne of David.


Also who would be capable of inventing this guy and maintaining the lie for over 2000 years?


What a nonsensical argument - the version of the Jesus story you know today is different to what was popularly believed even two centuries ago, and it changed hugely several times in the first hundred years of the Christian cult.


If the answer is the church they didn't even exist until after his death. Also pretty much each one of the apostles were put to death,


...according to which source, hmm?


...surely one of them would have renounced a lie of this magnitude. You would barley be able to tell the stories with a straight face.

By this logic, Christians are wrong, and Muslims are right - because some Muslims will commit suicide in his name.

I think this is the one. http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/intellectuelle/archives/001583.html

I am not sure if it is a direct translation.

P. Cornelius Tacitus, a member of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, wrote a history of Rome covering A.D. 14-68 called Annals.

Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called "Christians" [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. The author of this name, Christ, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly supersition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated.

Growing up in the Czech Republic, 2nd most godless country in Europe, I wasn't raised religiously. My dad's a non-practising catholic, my mum believes in some higher power but not a specific god.

I'm basically a sceptical atheist, based on the irreconcilability of an omnipotent and omni-loving being with the existence of evil in the world.

I've become kinda indifferent to religion. I definitely support secularisation, but as for people's personal believes? That's up to them.

I think this is the one. http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/intellectuelle/archives/001583.html

I am not sure if it is a direct translation.

P. Cornelius Tacitus, a member of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, wrote a history of Rome covering A.D. 14-68 called Annals.

Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called "Christians" [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. The author of this name, Christ, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly supersition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated.

Okay. The time period covered is 14-68 CE.

When did Tacitus write it? (109-118CE)

When was Tacitus even born? 56-ish CE

How many books were there in the Annals? 16-ish.

How many mention Nero? 3... and a half. The last is unfinished - and those were the texts written in the last few years of his life. 16 books in less than a decade, that's about 2 books a year... so Nero was written entirely within the sciope of... say 115 to 118 CE. Or 50 years after the events are supposed to have taken place, and almost a hundred years after the 'Jesus' events are supposed to have taken place. Tacitus wasn't even BORN in the lifespan of the alleged Jesus.

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

I think that covers the basics. Just interested in seeing what everyone says. :)

1. Born into a baptist family

2. It makes sense to me, and even if it is not true there is a good moral code you can take out of it. Although I understand why people could be angry with the gay marriage part.

What does anyone have to gain from 'inventing' any god?

Or - are you here admitting that all stories of gods are equal and equally true?

I am pretty sure if you put the myth writers to the same scurtiny that the Apostles suffered they would have recanted.


Which name? Jesus? There were at least two stories of messianic figures, at that time, in that place, by that name... and several others of different names. There are a number of reasons why that name MIGHT have been chosen, not least being that it was the only one that bridged two separate sets of stories, allowing an accretion of myth.

I know that false prophets, mentioned in the Bible.



'Jesus' is Greek.

Or do you mean - why make the character Greek, if you were going to write it? Obviously - because writing it for Hellenic Jews, they'd know little details like the Throne of David.

That would be like an Aanglo-Saxon making up a myth for a Native American. If we are claiming it was the Jews then wouldn't they have made a person who conformed to their worldviews at the time? Why would you invent someone that is totally against your way of life?


What a nonsensical argument - the version of the Jesus story you know today is different to what was popularly believed even two centuries ago, and it changed hugely several times in the first hundred years of the Christian cult.

Most of that is because we have learned more translated better etc.




...according to which source, hmm?[/QUOTE]

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html

Okay let's take them from the top

Judas committed suicide

Peter dies around the same time as Paul did. Both likely at the hands of Nero.

James Alpheus also known as Thaddeus : We know he lived at least five years after the death of Christ because of mentions in the Bible. According to tradition, James son of Alpheus was thrown down from the temple by the scribes and Pharisees; he was then stoned, and his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club.

James the son of Zebedee: He was put to death by Herod Agrippa I shortly before the day of the Passover, in the year 44 or about 11 years after the death of Christ. From Acts 12: 1-2.

Andrew: No accurate death date given. A variety of traditions say he preached in Scythia, in Greece, in Asia Minor and Thrace. He is reported to have been crucified at Patrae in Achaia.

Philip: Again, the Bible does not say when he died nor do we have accurate information. According to tradition he preached in Phrygia, and died at Hierapolis.

Bartholomew: There is no information concerning his death, not even by tradition

Matthew: He must have lived many years as an apostle, since he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew which was written at least twenty years after the death of Christ. There is reason to believe that he stayed for fifteen years at Jerusalem, after which he went as missionary to the Persians, Parthians and Medes. There is a legend that he died a martyr in Ethiopia

Simon the Canaanite – No information either in the Bible or by tradition


Or are you trying to say that all these people didn't exist either? Paul was an eye witness. Peter was an eye witness to the events. Are you saying that none of the people in the Bible existed? Where do you draw the line?



By this logic, Christians are wrong, and Muslims are right - because some Muslims will commit suicide in his name.


I can't really comment on Muslim beliefs as I do not know what they are.

I am pretty sure if you put the myth writers to the same scurtiny that the Apostles suffered they would have recanted.


The apostles?


I know that false prophets, mentioned in the Bible.


Which, of course, 'Jesus' would be, if he were a real historical figure.


That would be like an Aanglo-Saxon making up a myth for a Native American.


Why would it? Who do you think wrote it?


If we are claiming it was the Jews then wouldn't they have made a person who conformed to their worldviews at the time? Why would you invent someone that is totally against your way of life?


It did conform to the worldviews of some. Most Jews have rejected it, because it doesn't fit very well for them.


Most of that is because we have learned more translated better etc.


You are aware that traditions held Jesus to be entirely spirtual, or entirely mortal, at various times, in the first decades of the Christian church? That's because of better translation?


http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html

Okay let's take them from the top

Judas committed suicide

Peter dies around the same time as Paul did. Both likely at the hands of Nero.

James Alpheus also known as Thaddeus : We know he lived at least five years after the death of Christ because of mentions in the Bible. According to tradition, James son of Alpheus was thrown down from the temple by the scribes and Pharisees; he was then stoned, and his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club.

James the son of Zebedee: He was put to death by Herod Agrippa I shortly before the day of the Passover, in the year 44 or about 11 years after the death of Christ. From Acts 12: 1-2.

Andrew: No accurate death date given. A variety of traditions say he preached in Scythia, in Greece, in Asia Minor and Thrace. He is reported to have been crucified at Patrae in Achaia.

Philip: Again, the Bible does not say when he died nor do we have accurate information. According to tradition he preached in Phrygia, and died at Hierapolis.

Bartholomew: There is no information concerning his death, not even by tradition

Matthew: He must have lived many years as an apostle, since he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew which was written at least twenty years after the death of Christ. There is reason to believe that he stayed for fifteen years at Jerusalem, after which he went as missionary to the Persians, Parthians and Medes. There is a legend that he died a martyr in Ethiopia

Simon the Canaanite – No information either in the Bible or by tradition


So - either biblical source, or no actual source. There's my point.


Or are you trying to say that all these people didn't exist either?


Sure.


Paul was an eye witness. Peter was an eye witness to the events. Are you saying that none of the people in the Bible existed?


Some of them did, I'm sure. The ones you can corroborate with contemporary (ish) and independent sources, I'm more likely to accept.


Where do you draw the line?


At evidence. I'm weird like that.


I can't really comment on Muslim beliefs as I do not know what they are.

That's a cop-out. You said Christians wouldn't die for it if it wasn't true. Muslims 'die for it' - so it must be true. Your logic.

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

No one is born as a christian, but as a baby. But hey, I am baptized as one.

2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?

I'm not

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

Some people discover that Santa Claus is not real.

Okay. The time period covered is 14-68 CE.

When did Tacitus write it? (109-118CE)

When was Tacitus even born? 56-ish CE

How many books were there in the Annals? 16-ish.

How many mention Nero? 3... and a half. The last is unfinished - and those were the texts written in the last few years of his life. 16 books in less than a decade, that's about 2 books a year... so Nero was written entirely within the sciope of... say 115 to 118 CE. Or 50 years after the events are supposed to have taken place, and almost a hundred years after the 'Jesus' events are supposed to have taken place. Tacitus wasn't even BORN in the lifespan of the alleged Jesus.


Are trying to say when were they published. They may have published many years later but when is the account from? What time period does the story take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE — 26–36 AD/CE)
Pontius Pilate (pronounced /ˈpɔnʧəs ˈpaɪlət/; Latin: Pontius Pilatus, Greek: Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος) was the Prefect of the Roman Judaea province from the year AD 26 until AD 36.

The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written c. 70 AD/CE.[125][126][127] Matthew is placed at being sometime after this date and Luke is thought by some scholars to have been written as early as 60 AD/CE, although others argue for a later date ranging from 70 to 100 AD/CE.[128][129]

Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion.


This has to do more with publishing than when the stories took place.

A lot of the date problem come from changing the calendar.

Are trying to say when were they published.


No.


They may have published many years later but when is the account from? What time period does the story take place.


One assumes that the 'crucifixion story' is supposed to have been taking place somewhere around the 25-35 CE period. That's regardless of when it was 'written'.


Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE — 26–36 AD/CE)


Right. So - dead twenty years before Tacitus (for example) was even born, yes?


Pontius Pilate (pronounced /ˈpɔnʧəs ˈpaɪlət/; Latin: Pontius Pilatus, Greek: Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος) was the Prefect of the Roman Judaea province from the year AD 26 until AD 36.


Right, so the events - IF they took place - MUST have taken place at least 20 years before Tacitus (again) was even born, yes?


The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written c. 70 AD/CE.[125][126][127] Matthew is placed at being sometime after this date and Luke is thought by some scholars to have been written as early as 60 AD/CE, although others argue for a later date ranging from 70 to 100 AD/CE.[128][129]


All of these dates have been argued about, which isn't really relevent. If Jesus is supposed to have died in 36 CE (or somewhere close) it doesn't matter when the Christian accounts were written, because it won't affect THAT date.


Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion.


Biblical scholars also suggest one or more earlier drafts of the texts that evolved into the 'Gospels' or 'Matthew', 'Mark' and 'Luke'.

But we can't base any of our dating on those assumptions, and we can't test for validity based on those assumptions - because there's nothing tangible.

Which means that - even among the biased reporting of non-independent sources - there is NOTHING contemporary.


This has to do more with publishing than when the stories took place.


No, it doesn't.

Tacitus was writing other stuff until he started on Annals, and he didn't finish Annals - which means we can nail down his timing on those texts to a small decade-ish window. Jesus is supposed to have been born more than a century before that point, and to have died at the very least HALF a century before that point.

Nothing to do with publishing of the 'Jesus' stories - it's about when they are supposed to have happened. There is simply no way Tacitus, Jospehus, etc were witnesses... and it's unlikely they were writing from testimony of witnesses.


A lot of the date problem come from changing the calendar.

No, it didn't.

Why is this thread still going? Neither side is going to capitulate in this. Just move on already!

Why is this thread still going? Neither side is going to capitulate in this. Just move on already!

Watching GnI systematically butcher TB's argument is fun in a weird way, like watching a cobra take on a narcoleptic hamster.

1. Raised Lutheran, then Methodist, then Unitarian. Personally became an atheist partway through being raised Methodist.
3. Partly due to there not being sufficient evidence that God exists. Partly through being dumped in a dumpster by my youth group and being chastised by the youth minister for being angry at them for it.

The apostles?

Which, of course, 'Jesus' would be, if he were a real historical figure.


Of course he totally made up so we don't have to?



Why would it? Who do you think wrote it?


Jews wrote the Bible. Which what confuses me why would they make up a person who did not conform to their way of thinking? If I was going to make up an American deity I would use something akin to Uncle Sam. Why would I invent someone that challenged everything I believed in? It doesn't make sense?


It did conform to the worldviews of some. Most Jews have rejected it, because it doesn't fit very well for them.


They rejected because it told them stuff they did not want to hear. Why would they invent someone like that?


You are aware that traditions held Jesus to be entirely spiritual, or entirely mortal, at various times, in the first decades of the Christian church? That's because of better translation?

Of course he was mortal he died didn't he? He was part human, part God. You could say he beat death but his earthly body died.



So - either biblical source, or no actual source. There's my point.

Right but it doesn't change the story one bit and it caught on for centuries after his death on all continents of this world and will only get stronger in time to come.


Sure.

Some of them did, I'm sure. The ones you can corroborate with contemporary (ish) and independent sources, I'm more likely to accept.

Which pretty likely none so the whole book is made up. It all some strangely woven together fantasy. You are funny.


At evidence. I'm weird like that.


Pointless and a waste of time.


That's a cop-out. You said Christians wouldn't die for it if it wasn't true. Muslims 'die for it' - so it must be true. Your logic.

The key part is Muslim believe in what they are doing, if they didn't I am not sure they would blow themselves up. Now try to get someone to do it, that knows you are lying. Good luck!

Watching GnI systematically butcher TB's argument is fun in a weird way, like watching a cobra take on a narcoleptic hamster.

No this is typical. One can not attack the message so they attack the sources. If you discount the whole Bible it does not leave much to go by.

Many scholars use the Bible as reference point. Most of the criteria he needs for a source did not exist at the time. It is not like they had newspaper or ID like we have. Imposing our culture on people of the Bible is a mistake.

Of course he totally made up so we don't have to?


Not my problem. If he really lived, the Bible is bullshit, because it claims he's the messiah, and he can't be, because him being messiah would make the Bible false. It's something of a catch 22, which, fortunately, I don't have to rationalise.


Jews wrote the Bible. Which what confuses me why would they make up a person who did not conform to their way of thinking?


They didn't. One or two people wrote the original scriptures, or founded the original movement. The bulk of the Jews rejected it... but some didn't.


If I was going to make up an American deity I would use something akin to Uncle Sam. Why would I invent someone that challenged everything I believed in? It doesn't make sense?


The people who originally embraced it... DID believe that worldview. But they weren't ALL of the Jews, obviously.


They rejected because it told them stuff they did not want to hear. Why would they invent someone like that?


Most of the Jews reject it because it's impossible to reconcile the Old and New Testaments if you've actually READ the Old Testament.

Those Jews who DID embrace it were more willing to overlook conflicts in pursuit of messiah.


Of course he was mortal he died didn't he?


All that proves is that he must have sinned.


He was part human, part God.


I suggest you consult your scholarly sources again. Early arguments had him as EITHER mortal OR spiritual. It wasn't until Constantine got involved that THAT little headache got sorted out.


You could say he beat death but his earthly body died.


Then what was the point of Thomas putting his hands in the wounds?


Right but it doesn't change the story one bit


Did you forget what we were just discussing? The people you're claiming as witnesses and early messengers.... can't even be shown to have existed.

It's like me asking to bring Santa to the stand in my defence.


...and it caught on for centuries after his death on all continents of this world and will only get stronger in time to come.


Eh... sure. Which is why Islam is the fastest growing religion, and is expected to overtake Christianity shortly.


Which pretty likely none so the whole book is made up.


Seems a reasonable assumption.

If you can't prove that the claimed witnesses were real, what is the value of the 'witness testimony'?


It all some strangely woven together fantasy. You are funny.


I'm funny? Have you ever actually read any other holy books? Try researching the complex interwoven stories of the Egyptian, Hellenic, or Norse pantheons, sometime.

Again - UNLESS you are arguing that ALL god stories are true.


Pointless and a waste of time.


Evidence is a waste of time? Serious?


The key part is Muslim believe in what they are doing, if they didn't I am not sure they would blow themselves up. Now try to get someone to do it, that knows you are lying. Good luck!

Muslims believe that their view of god is the right one. You believe yours is. What's the difference?

You argued that Christianity MUST have been real, because Christians died for it. Well, some Muslims are STILL dying for Islam... by your logic, that's proof of reality.

No this is typical. One can not attack the message so they attack the sources.

GnI's far broader knowledge of both the message and its sources is clear throughout this debate. And examining the source is a good way to learn about the real intent of the message.


If you discount the whole Bible it does not leave much to go by.

Others say the same of the Koran or a dozen other religious sources that you discount. Its been shown several times through this debate that you aren't able to consistently apply even your own logic.


Many scholars use the Bible as reference point. Most of the criteria he needs for a source did not exist at the time.

Like the fact that your supposed contemporary reference wasn't even born at the time time? How much does a story change in the telling from one person to another? Form on day to another? How about from one lifetime to another?


It is not like they had newspaper or ID like we have. Imposing our culture on people of the Bible is a mistake.

I don't think GnI asked for an ID card, you clearly don't even grasp what it is he's asking for. The fact that its so unfathomable to you how or why a story could be elaborated, or how your "why would anybody fake Jesus" could apply to any number of contrary religions and conclusions is part of why your argument is the hamster in this debate.

No this is typical. One can not attack the message


Whatever gave you the idea that one cannot attack the message?

I've shown you before that Jesus is - scripturally - a false prophet, if he's real. The message can be 'attacked' internally, by the scripture, itself.


...so they attack the sources.


Questioning sources is not an attack.

If you discount the whole Bible it does not leave much to go by.


Exactly. You got that, huh?


Many scholars use the Bible as reference point.


And that means... what? An appeal to popularity?


Most of the criteria he needs for a source did not exist at the time. It is not like they had newspaper or ID like we have.


And yet we have far more corroboration for, say, Julius Caesar.


Imposing our culture on people of the Bible is a mistake.

No one is talking about imposing cultures. All I ask is a little academic rigour, a little intellectual honesty - and an end to pleading 'special exception' JUST for this holy book while you trash other 'histories' for the same failings.

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

I think that covers the basics. Just interested in seeing what everyone says. :)


1. Born into but kept it with me as I merged into Adult hood.
2. I am a Christian now for Logical appeal. Only taking in pieces of the religion or listening to people who misrepresent the religion make it look foolish, one must take it all in, not parts. I cannot stress that enough.
3. x

Because, by saying 'The Pope' you can be pretty certain which one of the highest echelon of the Roman church I am talking about. By saying 'cardinal', it could be any one of a number of cardinals or still-living-former-cardinals.
This would only be a good analogy if there was more than one person going by "Acharya". Googling it reveals that -acharya is found as a suffix in Indic appelations like "Bhaskaracharya", but I don't know of anyone else using it standalone; "Acharya S" goes by "Acharya", alone, more often (by a wide margin) than by "Acharya S"; it is a self-chosen pseudonym, and the fact that it is derived from an occupational title, like "Smith" or "Baker" or thousands of other names, still strikes me as a thorough irrelevancy.

Besides, we were in the context of "authors writing about the non-historical Jesus hypothesis", in which context saying "Acharya" is about as ambiguous as saying "Barack" in a thread about US politics (regardless of how many African peasants might also bear that name).

Patronising? That's a promising start - I wonder where you're going to go with this?
Nowhere-- if YOU will drop your patronizing crap about how much better read than I you supposedly are. If you have a source that you think is worthy of serious discussion, then name it, and discuss the substantive points in it; otherwise you just have a very lame argument-from-authority (the argument from authority is particularly weak when you can't or won't even name the "authority", whose authoritativeness I am not likely to agree to anyway).
Then I owe you thanks, since I've used that particular resource a number of times.
You're welcome. I had no part in assembling the JPS Tanakh, but they list me as an honorary "Masorete" for my part in creating the computerized file of the text which they used.
You claimed there has been no serious debate.
That's correct. There hasn't been. I have invited you to argue that there DESERVES to be serious debate: but up to this point, no, the proponents of your side have not succeeded in obtaining any serious attention from the other side, who just look at your side as a bunch of lunatics.
Yes, you're the daddy of the online tanakh, almost half a century ago. And? What bearing does that have, in your mind? Because in the real world, you typing a bunch of stuff into a computer somewhwere between 30 and 40 years ago, just doesn't equate to you being necessarily well versed even in THAT side of the 'debate'. It just means you can type. Or could, a while back.
There was a little more to it. We put in grammatical separators, so I had to be able to parse the Hebrew. And beyond the consonants and vowel points, for which the coding scheme was simple, I had to completely revamp the coding for all other marks, such as the cantillations (the special accents telling the cantors what tunes to sing) and the extraordinaries (raised, enlarged, "crowned", and other specially-formed letters). It was for this that professor Parunak put my name in his paper about the project; I thanked him jokingly "Now I'll forever be a footnote!" but that has turned out to be seriously true (it was the most interesting job I've ever held, and probably the most important I'll ever accomplish in this life).

But no, I would not pretend it made me a scholarly authority. It did force me to read (multiply, given the need for proofreading) the entire text. I was a voracious reader before, of course, and have remained so since.

Dishonest is an interesting word to use there. In what way is it dishonest to say that... for example... Abraham is said to have (almost?) sacrificed his son?

Calling that "the same as the Jesus story" would be dishonest. But I was referring more to these kinds of assertions: "Krishna, too, was born of a virgin" (he was the sixth child of eight); "Osiris had a mother named Meri" (his mother was Tefnut); "Three wise men attended the birth of Mithra in a cave/manger" (Mithra sprang fully-formed from a rock which had previously been the entirety of the universe: this was the "Big Bang" or "Let there be light!" moment at which the universe started; there were of course no "wise men" because this was the first time a multiplicity of distinct objects existed at all, in this cosmology). Longish lists of these supposed matches to the Jesus story in other mythologies, all thoroughly bogus, are what the "non-historical Jesus" crowd are particularly noted for.
Doherty, that you had never heard of. Your attempts to find fault in Doherty AFTER it was explained to you do not offset the massive chink in your armour - your claims of lack of debate can largely be explained by virtue of the fact that you just don't know, and won't listen.

I had never heard of Doherty precisely because he has attracted no serious attention. You brought up this unimpressive random-Internet-guy, so I checked him out just in case I was wrong (that's been known to happen :p) and there was some serious debate I hadn't heard-- but what did I find? The "debate" that he has attracted has consisted only of scholars who find the time to make fun of him; and for good reasons.

What Doherty had to say was not just false, but directly anti-true. Paul makes it crystal clear that he is adding new ideas to the pre-existing belief-set based on his visionary experiences, ideas which are being resisted by the pre-existing community of those who knew Jesus: Jesus used to have a human body, "fleshly" and "corruptible" and exactly the same as every one of us has, but now, as the risen Christ, he has a "glorified" body in some spiritual realm, and that is why Paul's visions should be accepted as genuine new revelations, etc. This is exactly the opposite of what Doherty, and you, want to believe about the sequence of events: that the purely visionary notion of Christ came first.

How exactly do you think this worked? You think Paul just had a fertile imagination, and that the pre-existing community of Peter, James, John, etc. were also "visionaries" of the same sort, just with somewhat less fertile imaginations? No: Paul was a visionary of a particular kind which I know quite well, because I am one. I had the "aura" experience twice this weekend, for the first time in years (because of a four-day flu with fever that left me weakened); "aura" is the technical name for a strong sensation that comes before a seizure attack, a sharp smell for some people, a ringing in the ears for others, but for me a distracting jagged vibrating line of colored light. It has not proceeded to a seizure since I was in my mid-twenties (I just have to sit still for a few minutes and it goes away), but when it did: the Blazing Circle of painfully intense light would take over my field of vision (in the movie version of Lord of the Rings, the "lidless eye of Sauron" was very much like what the Blazing Circle looked like to me), and knock me prostrate, and while I was immobilized the Commanding Voice would give me prophecies, or assign me missions, or ask enigmatic riddles. So, when I read the "road to Damascus" account I just nod, and say "Oh, of course, Paul was having one of THOSE."

It's called temporal lobe epilepsy; it is much rarer than the "grand mal" form (the complete loss of consciousness, with spasms, rolling, and moaning, that comes when the electrical storm erupts out of the sensory areas into wider regions of the brain). No, it is not at all credible that Peter, James, John were all visionaries the same way that Paul was. Paul himself was aware that, at least in part, his visions were a physical condition: Galatians has a passage, "You all know that it was my illness which caused me to begin preaching the gospel in the first place; and I know that my condition has been a trial to you; yet you received me as if I were an angel, or the Lord Jesus himself." Paul is identifying his Commanding Voice with Jesus because there already existed a group of Jesus followers, whom he had actively persecuted, and he perceives his affliction as punishment for this crime; he is adding a whole new ideological spin to the Jesus movement as it had existed before, which now makes it difficult for investigators to piece together what the original underlying story had been.
Instead, I'm suggesting that you having a disagreement with one phrasing, one concept, one chapter, even - doesn't invalidate an entire work.

How much of Doherty's rubbish should I read before deciding it's rubbish? Do you have some section of it you would recommend as less craptastic than what I've seen so far?
And which part of 'contemporary' is it that is confusing you, now?

You talked about Nero - and yet you've no evidence, so you fall back on a much LATER source.

I was seven when JFK was shot: and have never forgotten anything about that weekend. Tacitus was the same age when the Great Fire levelled half his hometown: do you think he ever forgot what the grownups were talking about at that time, or never heard anything more about the contemporaneous opinions when he was growing up to become a student of history? What, exactly, would constitute "evidence" in your blinkered mind?

Your claim was that nobody in the Roman world paid much particular attention to the first-generation Christian movement. That is somewhat like saying that America did not particularly notice al-Qaeda after 9/11. The full weight of the imperial state was brought to bear in scapegoating and attempting to exterminate this sect, at a time when its leaders still included eyewitnesses to the crucifixion who were not just still alive, but not even particularly old.

Do you think that if there had never actually been such a person as Osama bin-Laden, despite al-Qaeda's peculiar insistence in talking about this purely fictitious character who had supposedly fought in a war in Afghanistan that had never actually happened, that nobody in America would notice, "Hey, there really isn't such a person?" I'm still baffled at how, exactly, you think things work in the world.

Born and raised Catholic, then decided a fair amount of their views were BS.

So now I'm a Presbytarian. :D Science + Religion = Evvvvverybody's happy.

So now I'm a Presbytarian. :D Science + Religion = Evvvvverybody's happy.
Or it equals ignoring half of your faith and desperately trying to reconcile the rubbish you believe with the steady onslaught of facts and the truth.

Of course he was mortal he died didn't he? He was part human, part God.

Even if jesus WAS the son of jehovah (he's not), all that'd make him is half-human, half-demon. Claiming "Jesus's parents were jehovah and a human, therefore he's half-god!" is no different from claiming "Obama's parents were a black woman and a white guy, therefore he's half-black, half-asian!".

This would only be a good analogy if there was more than one person going by "Acharya". Googling it reveals that -acharya is found as a suffix in Indic appelations like "Bhaskaracharya", but I don't know of anyone else using it standalone; "Acharya S" goes by "Acharya", alone, more often (by a wide margin) than by "Acharya S"; it is a self-chosen pseudonym, and the fact that it is derived from an occupational title, like "Smith" or "Baker" or thousands of other names, still strikes me as a thorough irrelevancy.

Besides, we were in the context of "authors writing about the non-historical Jesus hypothesis", in which context saying "Acharya" is about as ambiguous as saying "Barack" in a thread about US politics (regardless of how many African peasants might also bear that name).

Nowhere-- if YOU will drop your patronizing crap about how much better read than I you supposedly are. If you have a source that you think is worthy of serious discussion, then name it, and discuss the substantive points in it; otherwise you just have a very lame argument-from-authority (the argument from authority is particularly weak when you can't or won't even name the "authority", whose authoritativeness I am not likely to agree to anyway).

You're welcome. I had no part in assembling the JPS Tanakh, but they list me as an honorary "Masorete" for my part in creating the computerized file of the text which they used.

That's correct. There hasn't been. I have invited you to argue that there DESERVES to be serious debate: but up to this point, no, the proponents of your side have not succeeded in obtaining any serious attention from the other side, who just look at your side as a bunch of lunatics.

There was a little more to it. We put in grammatical separators, so I had to be able to parse the Hebrew. And beyond the consonants and vowel points, for which the coding scheme was simple, I had to completely revamp the coding for all other marks, such as the cantillations (the special accents telling the cantors what tunes to sing) and the extraordinaries (raised, enlarged, "crowned", and other specially-formed letters). It was for this that professor Parunak put my name in his paper about the project; I thanked him jokingly "Now I'll forever be a footnote!" but that has turned out to be seriously true (it was the most interesting job I've ever held, and probably the most important I'll ever accomplish in this life).

But no, I would not pretend it made me a scholarly authority. It did force me to read (multiply, given the need for proofreading) the entire text. I was a voracious reader before, of course, and have remained so since.

Calling that "the same as the Jesus story" would be dishonest. But I was referring more to these kinds of assertions: "Krishna, too, was born of a virgin" (he was the sixth child of eight); "Osiris had a mother named Meri" (his mother was Tefnut); "Three wise men attended the birth of Mithra in a cave/manger" (Mithra sprang fully-formed from a rock which had previously been the entirety of the universe: this was the "Big Bang" or "Let there be light!" moment at which the universe started; there were of course no "wise men" because this was the first time a multiplicity of distinct objects existed at all, in this cosmology). Longish lists of these supposed matches to the Jesus story in other mythologies, all thoroughly bogus, are what the "non-historical Jesus" crowd are particularly noted for.

I had never heard of Doherty precisely because he has attracted no serious attention. You brought up this unimpressive random-Internet-guy, so I checked him out just in case I was wrong (that's been known to happen :p) and there was some serious debate I hadn't heard-- but what did I find? The "debate" that he has attracted has consisted only of scholars who find the time to make fun of him; and for good reasons.

What Doherty had to say was not just false, but directly anti-true. Paul makes it crystal clear that he is adding new ideas to the pre-existing belief-set based on his visionary experiences, ideas which are being resisted by the pre-existing community of those who knew Jesus: Jesus used to have a human body, "fleshly" and "corruptible" and exactly the same as every one of us has, but now, as the risen Christ, he has a "glorified" body in some spiritual realm, and that is why Paul's visions should be accepted as genuine new revelations, etc. This is exactly the opposite of what Doherty, and you, want to believe about the sequence of events: that the purely visionary notion of Christ came first.

How exactly do you think this worked? You think Paul just had a fertile imagination, and that the pre-existing community of Peter, James, John, etc. were also "visionaries" of the same sort, just with somewhat less fertile imaginations? No: Paul was a visionary of a particular kind which I know quite well, because I am one. I had the "aura" experience twice this weekend, for the first time in years (because of a four-day flu with fever that left me weakened); "aura" is the technical name for a strong sensation that comes before a seizure attack, a sharp smell for some people, a ringing in the ears for others, but for me a distracting jagged vibrating line of colored light. It has not proceeded to a seizure since I was in my mid-twenties (I just have to sit still for a few minutes and it goes away), but when it did: the Blazing Circle of painfully intense light would take over my field of vision (in the movie version of Lord of the Rings, the "lidless eye of Sauron" was very much like what the Blazing Circle looked like to me), and knock me prostrate, and while I was immobilized the Commanding Voice would give me prophecies, or assign me missions, or ask enigmatic riddles. So, when I read the "road to Damascus" account I just nod, and say "Oh, of course, Paul was having one of THOSE."

It's called temporal lobe epilepsy; it is much rarer than the "grand mal" form (the complete loss of consciousness, with spasms, rolling, and moaning, that comes when the electrical storm erupts out of the sensory areas into wider regions of the brain). No, it is not at all credible that Peter, James, John were all visionaries the same way that Paul was. Paul himself was aware that, at least in part, his visions were a physical condition: Galatians has a passage, "You all know that it was my illness which caused me to begin preaching the gospel in the first place; and I know that my condition has been a trial to you; yet you received me as if I were an angel, or the Lord Jesus himself." Paul is identifying his Commanding Voice with Jesus because there already existed a group of Jesus followers, whom he had actively persecuted, and he perceives his affliction as punishment for this crime; he is adding a whole new ideological spin to the Jesus movement as it had existed before, which now makes it difficult for investigators to piece together what the original underlying story had been.

How much of Doherty's rubbish should I read before deciding it's rubbish? Do you have some section of it you would recommend as less craptastic than what I've seen so far?

I was seven when JFK was shot: and have never forgotten anything about that weekend. Tacitus was the same age when the Great Fire levelled half his hometown: do you think he ever forgot what the grownups were talking about at that time, or never heard anything more about the contemporaneous opinions when he was growing up to become a student of history? What, exactly, would constitute "evidence" in your blinkered mind?

Your claim was that nobody in the Roman world paid much particular attention to the first-generation Christian movement. That is somewhat like saying that America did not particularly notice al-Qaeda after 9/11. The full weight of the imperial state was brought to bear in scapegoating and attempting to exterminate this sect, at a time when its leaders still included eyewitnesses to the crucifixion who were not just still alive, but not even particularly old.

Do you think that if there had never actually been such a person as Osama bin-Laden, despite al-Qaeda's peculiar insistence in talking about this purely fictitious character who had supposedly fought in a war in Afghanistan that had never actually happened, that nobody in America would notice, "Hey, there really isn't such a person?" I'm still baffled at how, exactly, you think things work in the world.

Thank you again.

http://www.catholiccharismaticny.org/index.html

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12.

There are people who simply perceive that the problems they are facing in life is caused by fellow human beings or members of their families. They were told that their mother/father is a witch/wizard or even that it is somebody in their family who is poisoning them. Such people go out in a spirit of vengeance to fight against their relatives and friends. Even when we claim that it is a fellow human being who has cursed us or working against our progress, the fact still remains that there is a fundamental principle or primordial force of evil that instigate or causes evil in life. That evil force is still at work from the time of its fall out of favor in heaven.

Every human life is ruled by a spiritual power. You are either in-dwelt and influenced by the spirit of God for good at particular times or you allow yourself to be ruled and influenced by evil spirits. We have a duty to constantly make sure we are under the influence of God. When you are under the influence of God, you can be encouraged that, "if God is for us, who can be against us." You can take the battle to the gates of hell, the gates of the enemy. You can take the battle to the places inhabited by the spiritual forces of evil. Set yourself against demonic spirits, not your fellow human beings. To be fighting your fellow humans beings, in the spiritual battle, when you should be fighting demonic spirits is to misunderstand the spiritual battle.

Your enemy is not your next door. Even when you consider your next door neighbor to be an enemy to you, you are obliged to "love your enemies and to do good to those who hate you." Your enemies are principalities and powers. These enemies do influence the lives of humans to instigate them to do evil.

Principalities and powers do not deserve your love. They are to be resisted with force. They are to be fought. They are to be overcome. They want to see you fail. They want to wreck your finances. They want to afflict you with sickness. Strike back at the enemy. You have waited too long. Never get tired in striking back, for principalities and powers are never tired in persisting in striking you.


Our argument reduces to sowing of the tares in my opinion. It is easy to discredit pretty much anything. Criticize the source, if that doesn't work criticize the message, make several different sets of religions all closely related so people are forced to choose a "shell game" of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? From whence then has it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay: lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

– Matthew 13:24–30, KJV

Another interpretation is that the parable explains the history and plan of the world. The world is the field in which the seed was sown. That is, the world is God's creation that He made good. The evil one came and planted bad seed — that is, he led humans into sin. The present state of the world is that there exists good seed — those who ultimately stop rebelling against God and accept His grace — and bad seed — those who refuse to accept and instead persist in rebellion. The reason God did not just destroy everybody who was in rebellion of Him (the bad seed) is that some people exist who have not yet accepted His grace, but someday will. These people would be uprooted if harvested too early. Instead, He is bringing the world to a point (the harvest) in which everybody will have made their final decision and can then be sorted fairly.

I was seven when JFK was shot: and have never forgotten anything about that weekend. Tacitus was the same age when the Great Fire levelled half his hometown:


ANd, how old was he, again, when Jesus was allegedly crucified?


...do you think he ever forgot what the grownups were talking about at that time,


At the time of the fire? Who cares? In what way is it relevent?


...or never heard anything more about the contemporaneous opinions when he was growing up to become a student of history?


Opinions don't interest me. Even old ones.


What, exactly, would constitute "evidence" in your blinkered mind?


Some corroboration would be nice. Material evidence would be better.

That's not a matter of being blinkered, it's a matetr of wanting to apply a little rigour.


Your claim was that nobody in the Roman world paid much particular attention to the first-generation Christian movement.


My claim was that there's no reason to believe there was a literal Jesus, because there is no independent, contemporary evidence.


That is somewhat like saying that America did not particularly notice al-Qaeda after 9/11. The full weight of the imperial state was brought to bear in scapegoating and attempting to exterminate this sect,


Based on what?


...at a time when its leaders still included eyewitnesses to the crucifixion who were not just still alive, but not even particularly old.


Based on what?


Do you think that if there had never actually been such a person as Osama bin-Laden, despite al-Qaeda's peculiar insistence in talking about this purely fictitious character who had supposedly fought in a war in Afghanistan that had never actually happened, that nobody in America would notice, "Hey, there really isn't such a person?" I'm still baffled at how, exactly, you think things work in the world.

Except that we have independent and contemporary evidence of Osama's existance.

A better example would be if Osama kept claiming that he had a divine prophetic friend, that we've still never seen - because that's a more equivalent situation.

ANd, how old was he, again, when Jesus was allegedly crucified?

Uh, I was not citing him as a witness to the crucifixion, but as a witness to what arguments were and were not made against first-generation Christians.
At the time of the fire? Who cares? In what way is it relevent?

Do you remember what we were talking about from one post to the next? The argument has been:
Tmut: if your theory was right, we would expect to find that Romans who argued against Christianity would point out that no such person as "Jesus" had ever existed.
GnI: no Romans argued against Christianity until very late; Romans at first barely even noticed the existence of this petty sect.
Tmut: Christianity was attacked from the very first generation, during the Great Fire incident for example
GnI: There's no evidence that ever even happened
Tmut: Tacitus is good evidence of what people were saying during the Great Fire
GnI: He's not a contemporary of the Great Fire; he was writing decades later
Tmut: He's an EYEWITNESS
Opinions don't interest me. Even old ones.

The opinions of those who were grownups at the time of the Great Fire are the opinions of people who would KNOW whether or not the execution of Jesus was a historical event. Their opinion is "Yes, of course, we put the founder of the Christians to death, and deservedly so"; not, "What are those Christians talking about, when we never put anybody to death like they claim?" Tacitus himself wasn't around at the crucifixion; I didn't say he was-- but, he is recording what people who were old enough to know had to say about the subject.
Some corroboration would be nice. Material evidence would be better.

Suetonius and Dio Cassius also confirm the story of the Great Fire (Suetonius is a less good source because he often reports as "facts" what Tacitus more carefully reports as stories that were in circulation; Dio Cassius a less good source because he was not actually alive at the time but had to rely on records). And-- material remains have indeed been discovered by archaeologists.
That's not a matter of being blinkered, it's a matetr of wanting to apply a little rigour.

You have taken it so such absurd levels that I do not think you could be persuaded of the existence of anybody.

My claim was that there's no reason to believe there was a literal Jesus, because there is no independent, contemporary evidence.

Almost NO people from antiquity are mentioned except in writings put down on paper rather later, often considerably later.

[Tmut:]The full weight of the imperial state was brought to bear in scapegoating and attempting to exterminate this sect
Based on what?

Based on the eyewitness account by someone who lived then.

[Tmut]at a time when its leaders still included eyewitnesses to the crucifixion who were not just still alive, but not even particularly old.
Based on what?

Based on the short chronological interval between Pontius Pilate and Emperor Nero.

Uh, I was not citing him as a witness to the crucifixion, but as a witness to what arguments were and were not made against first-generation Christians.


First - the conjecture - that Nero was talking about 'first generation Christians. Second - You missed the point - when do you think the events took place? And when do you think they were written about?

Tacitus was writing decades after the fact - what do the sources of the TIME say?


Do you remember what we were talking about from one post to the next? The argument has been:
Tmut: if your theory was right, we would expect to find that Romans who argued against Christianity would point out that no such person as "Jesus" had ever existed.
GnI: no Romans argued against Christianity until very late; Romans at first barely even noticed the existence of this petty sect.
Tmut: Christianity was attacked from the very first generation, during the Great Fire incident for example
GnI: There's no evidence that ever even happened
Tmut: Tacitus is good evidence of what people were saying during the Great Fire
GnI: He's not a contemporary of the Great Fire; he was writing decades later
Tmut: He's an EYEWITNESS


I'll tell you what, why don't you just write both sides from now on? You apparently have no problem with making up your own versions of what you wish I'd said.


The opinions of those who were grownups at the time of the Great Fire are the opinions of people who would KNOW whether or not the execution of Jesus was a historical event.


Conjecture.

Show me a connection between Tacitus and the alleged crucifiction. Show me one person you can prove he talked to, at any point, who saw this 'Jesus' die?


Their opinion is "Yes, of course, we put the founder of the Christians to death, and deservedly so"


Now you're making up THEIR arguments. Historicity is no obstacle if you don't mind a strawman twenty centuries tall.


... not, "What are those Christians talking about, when we never put anybody to death like they claim?" Tacitus himself wasn't around at the crucifixion;


At last, you get one thing right.


I didn't say he was-- but, he is recording what people who were old enough to know had to say about the subject.


Maybe. And just because they are 'old enough to know' doesn't make THEIR opinions worthwhile. Where were they?


Suetonius and Dio Cassius also confirm the story of the Great Fire (Suetonius is a less good source because he often reports as "facts" what Tacitus more carefully reports as stories that were in circulation; Dio Cassius a less good source because he was not actually alive at the time but had to rely on records).


I assume that what you mean is that Dio wasn't even born until after the other two were dead... so more than a century after the alleged crucifixion.


And-- material remains have indeed been discovered by archaeologists.


Material remains of what, exactly? Jesus? Paul?


You have taken it so such absurd levels that I do not think you could be persuaded of the existence of anybody.


I'm willing to accept the specific existence of a very few characters from history. That doesn't mean I deny there were people, obviously - it means I don't easily accept the specific claims of specific stories about specific people.

That's not absurd. I consider accepting history 'just because someone said' to be lacking in rigour deserved by a serious investigation... and, to be honest... kind of gullible.


Based on the eyewitness account by someone who lived then.


Who do you think showed that 'the full weight of the imperial state' did anything?


Based on the short chronological interval between Pontius Pilate and Emperor Nero.

That doesn't show what you think it shows.

First - the conjecture - that Nero was talking about 'first generation Christians.
According to the eyewitness, they were talking about "Christians", and this is the first generation when ANYBODY talks about "Christians", so we call them "first generation Christians"-- are you conjecturing that "Christians" had been in existence for generations before? Or what is it you are trying to say?
Second - You missed the point - when do you think the events took place?
AD 64.
And when do you think they were written about?
Later-- LIKE ALWAYS.
Tacitus was writing decades after the fact - what do the sources of the TIME say?
WHAT "sources of the times"? Are you under some misapprehension that daily newspapers and current-events magazines were in regular publication back then? There is no such thing as a book from the 60's writing about the events of the 60's, or a book from the 30's writing about events of the 30's, or a book from the 150's writing about events of the 150's. Every recorded event from ancient times was recorded in a writing that was set down on paper at a LATER date, usually MUCH later ("On the Gallic Wars" was written by Julius Caesar when the events described were only 7-13 years in the past, an unusually short interval-- intervals in the decades are more typical). We are very lucky when our source is both an eyewitness to the events, and also a careful and honest reporter: on the Great Fire, Tacitus is an excellent source.

Do you actually think that we have such a thing as a surviving bureaucratic archive of Roman records that we can consult? Not so: we don't even get fragmentary archives (recording events like land transfers as they happened) until late Merovingian France (7th century AD).
I'll tell you what, why don't you just write both sides from now on? You apparently have no problem with making up your own versions of what you wish I'd said.
IF YOU HAVE ANY CORRECTION TO MAKE ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU MEANT TO SAY, THEN MAKE IT. What I put down was that I understood you to be arguing. I have tried in good faith to answer your arguments as you make them.
Conjecture.

Show me a connection between Tacitus and the alleged crucifiction. Show me one person you can prove he talked to, at any point, who saw this 'Jesus' die?
Rome attracted immigrants from all over the Empire, and of course was the center of the administrators who received correspondence from the provinces about what had transpired there. If the Christian story about how their founder was executed by the government was a fabrication, somebody would have known that. I consider this a rather self-evident point.
Now you're making up THEIR arguments.
No. I was barely even paraphrasing. But if you want the verbatim, then edit my "Yes, of course, we put the founder of the Christians to death, and deservedly so" back to "The founder of the Christian name was put to death as a malefactor".
I assume that what you mean is that Dio wasn't even born until after the other two were dead... so more than a century after the alleged crucifixion.
No. His life overlaps with Tacitus and Suetonius, but he hadn't been born at the time of the Great Fire.
Material remains of what, exactly? Jesus? Paul?
OF THE GREAT FIRE. What the fuck do you think we're talking about? It is very difficult talking to a goldfish who can't follow the thread of the discussion from one sentence to the next.
I'm willing to accept the specific existence of a very few characters from history.
I consider this position utterly absurd. WHICH handful of people do you believe in? Do you believe in Alexander the Great, for example?
Who do you think showed that 'the full weight of the imperial state' did anything?
Tacitus. Who do you think I'm talking about? If all of your friends were rounded up by the police and then set on fire as "living torches" or fed to animals, would you think the weight of the state had come down on them, just a tad?
That doesn't show what you think it shows.
It shows that anyone who was in his early twenties when the Jesus movement started was still in his late forties when the Great Fire happened.

According to the eyewitness,


Eyewitness is conjecture, at best. Someone replaying hearsay might be more appropriate.


...they were talking about "Christians", and this is the first generation when ANYBODY talks about "Christians", so we call them "first generation Christians"-- are you conjecturing that "Christians" had been in existence for generations before? Or what is it you are trying to say?


Sure. You assume 'first generation' because you don't know about anything earlier - that's called conjecture.


AD 64.

Later-- LIKE ALWAYS.


Nice vague response on the second one - for a reason we both know.


WHAT "sources of the times"?


Exactly.


...on the Great Fire, Tacitus is an excellent source.


Meh. He might have been alive, but that doesn't necessarily make you a good source.


IF YOU HAVE ANY CORRECTION TO MAKE ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU MEANT TO SAY, THEN MAKE IT. What I put down was that I understood you to be arguing. I have tried in good faith to answer your arguments as you make them.


There's a quote function, somewhere.


Rome attracted immigrants from all over the Empire, and of course was the center of the administrators who received correspondence from the provinces about what had transpired there. If the Christian story about how their founder was executed by the government was a fabrication, somebody would have known that. I consider this a rather self-evident point.


You consider it self-evident, apparently, because self-evidence is the only evidence.

"Well, no one has said it DIDN'T happen" isn't a good enough reason to believe ANYTHING.


No. His life overlaps with Tacitus and Suetonius, but he hadn't been born at the time of the Great Fire.


Tacitus: 56-117 CE
Suetonius: circa 70 - circa 130 CE

Dio: 160-230 CE

...'overlaps' in what way?


...OF THE GREAT FIRE. What the fuck do you think we're talking about?


The importance of the Great Fire in THIS conversation, is how it relates to the Christian movement, because it relates to Christ.

'Material remains' of a FIRE? How helpful do you think that is, in isolation? How useful is it in assessing the historicity of the events, the movement, or the central figure?


I consider this position utterly absurd.


Knock yourself out. I consider any other position to be absurd. I don't think there's anything wrong with basing acceptance on evidence.


Tacitus.


Okay - then let's see where Tacitus says something like: "the full weight of the imperial state"?


Who do you think I'm talking about? If all of your friends were rounded up by the police and then set on fire as "living torches" or fed to animals, would you think the weight of the state had come down on them, just a tad?


Could just be a couple of bad cops, no?

And, again I think you're assuming more than is safe to assume from the sources. I wouldn't do it. I won't believe every source I read, unqualified. You're welcome to accept texts that way, if it works for you.


It shows that anyone who was in his early twenties when the Jesus movement started was still in his late forties when the Great Fire happened.

Which doesn't equate to: "its leaders still included eyewitnesses to the crucifixion".

Can you name ONE 'eyewitness' to the crucifixion? It'd be interested to see you support one, without hitting biblical sources.

Eyewitness is conjecture, at best.
OK, so not only do you not believe in the existence of anyone you haven't personally met, you're sure about them, either? They might all be holograms? Just how far does your radical skepticism go, here? You have moved way beyond not believing that Jesus existed. Are you sure that you yourself exist?
Sure. You assume 'first generation' because you don't know about anything earlier - that's called conjecture.
No, that's the opposite of conjecture: particularly when these first mentions also include mention of the recency of the founder. To assume ANYTHING ELSE would be rank conjecture, and require some proof.
[Tmut]WHAT "sources of the times"?
Exactly.
If the only writing you will consider "evidence" of an event is a newspaper published right while it is happening, then it is the entirety of human history prior to the printing press which you disbelieve. The attitude you are taking is just too silly to be worth debating any further.
In scientific method, to test Hypothesis A vs. Hypothesis B you ask, what should we expect to observe if A is true, or if B is true, and then see what we do observe. Now here, under NEITHER hypothesis should we expect to see any writings that meet your "rigorous" definition of "contemporaneous": such writings never exist, for any events in the deep past. But under the hypothesis that Jesus was a human being who was executed, we should expect to see subsequent accounts saying things like "The founder of the Christian sect was put to death...", which is what we do see; under the hypothesis that no such thing ever happened, what should we expect to see differently?
Meh. He might have been alive, but that doesn't necessarily make you a good source.
Not by itself, no: but that does show that his information is of personal knowledge. What makes him a good source is that he is careful to distinguish mere "rumors" from what he is confident enough to state as facts, that his accounts of events show no particular propagandistic spin, when cross-correlated with other accounts of the same events, etc. He appears to be honest and straightforward, and I don't know what your problem with him is.
There's a quote function, somewhere.
You expect me to include the entire past thread, rather than a summary?
"Well, no one has said it DIDN'T happen" isn't a good enough reason to believe ANYTHING.
When coupled with people who DO say it DID happen, yes, the absence of anybody even remotely suggesting otherwise is important.
Tacitus: 56-117 CE
Suetonius: circa 70 - circa 130 CE

Dio: 160-230 CE
My bad. I saw the 160 date, and mistook it for his date of death rather than date of birth.
'Material remains' of a FIRE? How helpful do you think that is, in isolation? How useful is it in assessing the historicity of the events, the movement, or the central figure?
It is what you were demanding. I asked you what it would take for you to accept the Great Fire incident, and you said you wanted corroboration and physical evidence. Both exist.
Knock yourself out. I consider any other position to be absurd. I don't think there's anything wrong with basing acceptance on evidence.
But you are demanding to see "evidence" of a kind which there is no plausible expectation that we would have, regardless of which hypothesis were correct. It is like you won't accept evolution unless every fossil comes with a "dog tag" listing the exact place of burial of the parents of that organism, so that we can trace the entire genealogy from Australopithecus to modern humans with zero gaps: of course we don't find that; why should anyone expect to?
Okay - then let's see where Tacitus says something like: "the full weight of the imperial state"?
Did I claim that to be a verbatim quote?
Could just be a couple of bad cops, no?
Uh, the human torches were in the personal gardens of the emperor. The HEAD OF STATE is not just in the category of "a couple of bad cops".
I won't believe every source I read, unqualified.
You won't believe any ancient source you read under any circumstances. You make demands of them which they cannot possibly meet.
Can you name ONE 'eyewitness' to the crucifixion? It'd be interested to see you support one, without hitting biblical sources.
Hey, it's not my fault that everybody who saw the crucifixion actually believed that it happened. Everybody who saw the JFK assassination believed that there was such a person as JFK, too.

OK, so not only do you not believe in the existence of anyone you haven't personally met, you're sure about them, either? They might all be holograms? Just how far does your radical skepticism go, here? You have moved way beyond not believing that Jesus existed. Are you sure that you yourself exist?

No, that's the opposite of conjecture: particularly when these first mentions also include mention of the recency of the founder. To assume ANYTHING ELSE would be rank conjecture, and require some proof.

If the only writing you will consider "evidence" of an event is a newspaper published right while it is happening, then it is the entirety of human history prior to the printing press which you disbelieve. The attitude you are taking is just too silly to be worth debating any further.
In scientific method, to test Hypothesis A vs. Hypothesis B you ask, what should we expect to observe if A is true, or if B is true, and then see what we do observe. Now here, under NEITHER hypothesis should we expect to see any writings that meet your "rigorous" definition of "contemporaneous": such writings never exist, for any events in the deep past. But under the hypothesis that Jesus was a human being who was executed, we should expect to see subsequent accounts saying things like "The founder of the Christian sect was put to death...", which is what we do see; under the hypothesis that no such thing ever happened, what should we expect to see differently?

Not by itself, no: but that does show that his information is of personal knowledge. What makes him a good source is that he is careful to distinguish mere "rumors" from what he is confident enough to state as facts, that his accounts of events show no particular propagandistic spin, when cross-correlated with other accounts of the same events, etc. He appears to be honest and straightforward, and I don't know what your problem with him is.

You expect me to include the entire past thread, rather than a summary?

When coupled with people who DO say it DID happen, yes, the absence of anybody even remotely suggesting otherwise is important.

My bad. I saw the 160 date, and mistook it for his date of death rather than date of birth.

It is what you were demanding. I asked you what it would take for you to accept the Great Fire incident, and you said you wanted corroboration and physical evidence. Both exist.

But you are demanding to see "evidence" of a kind which there is no plausible expectation that we would have, regardless of which hypothesis were correct. It is like you won't accept evolution unless every fossil comes with a "dog tag" listing the exact place of burial of the parents of that organism, so that we can trace the entire genealogy from Australopithecus to modern humans with zero gaps: of course we don't find that; why should anyone expect to?

Did I claim that to be a verbatim quote?

Uh, the human torches were in the personal gardens of the emperor. The HEAD OF STATE is not just in the category of "a couple of bad cops".

You won't believe any ancient source you read under any circumstances. You make demands of them which they cannot possibly meet.

Hey, it's not my fault that everybody who saw the crucifixion actually believed that it happened. Everybody who saw the JFK assassination believed that there was such a person as JFK, too.

Well said. Well argued, I am just reduced to a cheering section at this point.