OT Lance Armstrong is a Communist
Barney
Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up some
very un-American attitudes. From Sports Illustrated:
A man comes up to Armstrong with a big open hand and says, "Lance, I want to
talk to you about your belief in God."
'Well," Armstrong answers, "it's not gonna be a long talk."
True, doctors told Armstrong there was a 60% chance he was going to die, and
now he's more alive than ever. True, the chemo made him sterile, yet now,
thanks to frozen sperm, he's the father of three. And true, a man who wasn't
supposed to race again has now won an event he never came close to winning
before the cancer.
But that doesn't mean God did it. "Even when I was looking at death, I never
thought there was something waiting at the other end," he says. "I just think,
Whoosh. You're gone. And that's it."
This is where he and Kristin, a devout Catholic, don't bond. "If he doesn't
want to credit the source, that's up to him," she says.
"When I was a boy, I'd see people who talked about God at church and then went
home and beat their kids," Lance says. You wonder if he's talking about his
former stepfather, Terry Armstrong, a devout Christian who, Lance says, beat
him often.
From "Sportsman of the year: Lance Armstrong"
Sports Illustrated; New York; Dec 16, 2002; Rick Reilly
Your pal,
Barney
Happiness as a rule brings out the worst in people's characters. No longer
afraid, they radiantly flaunt their smugness, small vices and worst
sentimentalities.
--- Dawn Powell
Christina
> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up some
> very un-American attitudes. From Sports Illustrated:
>
> A man comes up to Armstrong with a big open hand and says, "Lance, I want to
> talk to you about your belief in God."
>
> 'Well," Armstrong answers, "it's not gonna be a long talk."
>
> <snip the rest>
Being an athiest, or perhaps just not religious, does not
make one a communist. Nor does it make one un-American.
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion as well.
Christina, who happens to be in Lance's hometown, and
we're quite proud of him
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
forge
wrote:
>"When I was a boy, I'd see people who talked about God at church and then went
>home and beat their kids," Lance says. You wonder if he's talking about his
>former stepfather, Terry Armstrong, a devout Christian who, Lance says, beat
>him often.
I see nothing wrong with Armstrong's feelings toward religion when he
had to live through this hypocrisy. If there is anything in the world
I hate it's hypocrites, especially where religious beliefs are
concerned. Fortunately there literally is a special place in Hell for
them. (grin at slight irony)
The Babaloughesian
"Barney" <schlitz...@aol.comekingdom> wrote in message
news:20030721213740...@mb-m18.aol.com...
>
> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up
some
> very un-American attitudes. From Sports Illustrated:
>
>
> A man comes up to Armstrong with a big open hand and says, "Lance, I want
to
> talk to you about your belief in God."
>
> 'Well," Armstrong answers, "it's not gonna be a long talk."
Nice one. Witty. BTW, hasn't it been a few decades since Communist and
atheist were considered interchangeable by the unwashed masses? I don't see
the point in this thread(or in most of these OT political threads), unless
it's a sort of social experiment to see how many people you can provoke.
--
"My god's will becomes me. When he speaks, he speaks through me. He has
needs like I do. We both want to rape you."
-Tool, "Opiate"
The Babaloughesian
aa #2138
Rose
Rose
The state of California has two i's but cannot see.
Willie Meikle
> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up some
> very un-American attitudes.
>
Actually the French are -very- religious in general. Sort of negates
your argument, doesn't it?
Willie
What if Bonnie Prince Charlie, and his whole army, were vampires?
http://www.willie.meikle.btinternet.co.uk
BTR1701
schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney) wrote:
Where exactly was his belief in communism discussed?
Barney
<m...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>Nice one. Witty. BTW, hasn't it been a few decades since Communist and
>atheist were considered interchangeable by the unwashed masses?
Haven't you noticed? The country is regressing back to McCarthyism.
> I don't see
>the point in this thread(or in most of these OT political threads), unless
>it's a sort of social experiment to see how many people you can provoke.
>
What's the point of *any* thread, on-topic or off-topic? To provoke
discussion.
Barney
<jimm...@austin.rr.com> writes:
>> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up
>some
>> very un-American attitudes. From Sports Illustrated:
>>
>> A man comes up to Armstrong with a big open hand and says, "Lance, I want
>to
>> talk to you about your belief in God."
>>
>> 'Well," Armstrong answers, "it's not gonna be a long talk."
>>
>> <snip the rest>
>
>Being an athiest, or perhaps just not religious, does not
>make one a communist.
Of course it does. It's just one step to setting aside your Bible to picking
up a copy of Das Kapital.
> Nor does it make one un-American.
Yes, it does, according to our current President. He has explicitly said that
he considers the irreligious to be second-class citizens.
>Freedom of religion means freedom from religion as well.
>
>Christina, who happens to be in Lance's hometown, and
>we're quite proud of him
>
Why? Lance isn't responsible for any of his cycling victories. God is.
Barney
willie...@btinternet.com (Willie Meikle) writes:
>> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up
>some
>> very un-American attitudes.
>>
>
>Actually the French are -very- religious in general. Sort of negates
>your argument, doesn't it?
>
Boy, is my face red. Next thing you're going to tell me that the idea of an
atheist being un-American is obsolete.
Barney
<bak...@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> writes:
>>"When I was a boy, I'd see people who talked about God at church and then
>went
>>home and beat their kids," Lance says. You wonder if he's talking about his
>>former stepfather, Terry Armstrong, a devout Christian who, Lance says, beat
>>him often.
>
>I see nothing wrong with Armstrong's feelings toward religion when he
>had to live through this hypocrisy. If there is anything in the world
>I hate it's hypocrites, especially where religious beliefs are
>concerned. Fortunately there literally is a special place in Hell for
>them. (grin at slight irony)
>
I consider hypocrisy a separate issue. Everyone hates hypocrites. Whether a
belief is honestly held doesn't affect the validity of the belief. Even if his
stepfather were a sincere Christian who followed all of Christ's teachings,
Lance still should have figured out that there is no God.
Rose
>
>Yes, it does, according to our current President. He has explicitly said
>that
>he considers the irreligious to be second-class citizens.
>
I hate to be Buffy-fan-esque, but can you quote a source?
Rose
"Smiling green at the change all around...I get on my knees and pray we won't
get fooled again." -- The Who
NickKnight
>'Well," Armstrong answers, "it's not gonna be a long talk."
And how does this make him a communist? Just because his
religion is one of the 2,000 that you don't belong to?
--------------------------------------------
To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
my e-mail address.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
The Babaloughesian
"Alicat" <isal...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:5s5rhvgif782964jf...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jul 2003 13:50:16 GMT, schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <bfieh9$f8p9l$1...@ID-177202.news.uni-berlin.de>, "The
Babaloughesian"
> ><m...@privacy.net> writes:
> >
> >>
> >>Nice one. Witty. BTW, hasn't it been a few decades since Communist and
> >>atheist were considered interchangeable by the unwashed masses?
> >
> >Haven't you noticed? The country is regressing back to McCarthyism.
>
> phrase for patriotism? Seems like it, at least as its used by the
> "left", whoever they are? (Barney, are you one of "them"? :)
I think McCarthyism is shorthand used for an atmosphere where it's
unreasonably easy for the label "traitor" to be thrown around. There was a
phrase used by my history professor a few months ago to describe France
during some monarchy or another- "patriotic paranoia". That seems to convey
the connotation of the word McCarthyism, at least to me.
--
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his
own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
-- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945
Aethelrede
Alicat wrote in message ...
>On 22 Jul 2003 04:38:31 -0700, willie...@btinternet.com (Willie
>Meikle) wrote:
>
>>schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney) wrote in message
news:<20030721213740...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
>>> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked
up some
>>> very un-American attitudes.
>>>
>>
>>Actually the French are -very- religious in general. Sort of negates
>>your argument, doesn't it?
>>
>
>
>certainly lots of old churches in France, but compared to the United
>States, France is almost completely irreligious in terms of belief and
>practice. (just compare the statistics when you ask people whether
>they "believe in God", for example).
The French have had strong anti-clerical writers with a lot of followers
since long before the revolution.
I think the un-American attitude crack was just someone who buys that
crap that anyone disappointed at what has been happening in the USA,
politically, economically and socially is anti-American, unpatriotic and a
supporter of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and terrorism. That's so
much like the attitudes that every dictator strives to instil in his
supporters. And in his secret police and military.
I just don't think that blindly following every whim of Bush and his
administration and political appointees is particularly sensible or good for
the country or the world.
forge
wrote:
>Yes, it does, according to our current President. He has explicitly said that
>he considers the irreligious to be second-class citizens.
Yeah, well he can suck my fat cock.
forge
wrote:
>Why? Lance isn't responsible for any of his cycling victories. God is.
Nah, God's just responsible for most OTHER athletes doing well. At
least, if you listen to their postgame interviews. Like the fucking
hypocrites actually believe that tripe.
forge
wrote:
>I consider hypocrisy a separate issue. Everyone hates hypocrites. Whether a
>belief is honestly held doesn't affect the validity of the belief. Even if his
>stepfather were a sincere Christian who followed all of Christ's teachings,
>Lance still should have figured out that there is no God.
That's... not a quid pro quo, y'know, Barney.
forge
>Whaaa? Where would you possibly get this idea from? There are
>certainly lots of old churches in France, but compared to the United
>States, France is almost completely irreligious in terms of belief and
>practice. (just compare the statistics when you ask people whether
>they "believe in God", for example).
Are you sure about this? I'd have thought the percentage of
non-religious Americans to French was roughly the same.
The Babaloughesian
"forge" <bak...@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qnmrhvsqctk6lj4q0...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jul 2003 13:50:16 GMT, schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney)
> wrote:
>
> >Why? Lance isn't responsible for any of his cycling victories. God is.
>
> Nah, God's just responsible for most OTHER athletes doing well.
Not to mention rappers and boy bands winning awards.
Christina
>
> >Being an athiest, or perhaps just not religious, does not
> >make one a communist.
>
> Of course it does. It's just one step to setting aside your Bible to picking
> up a copy of Das Kapital.
>
> > Nor does it make one un-American.
>
> Yes, it does, according to our current President. He has explicitly said that
> he considers the irreligious to be second-class citizens.
Last I checked, the United States is still a democracy,
not a theocracy.
>
> >Freedom of religion means freedom from religion as well.
> >
> >Christina, who happens to be in Lance's hometown, and
> >we're quite proud of him
> >
>
> Why? Lance isn't responsible for any of his cycling victories. God is.
>
Perhaps he doesn't draw his strength from god. He might
have enough strength to stand on his own without a church.
Christina
Barney
(Rose) writes:
>
>I hate to be Buffy-fan-esque, but can you quote a source?
>
I can do better than that. I can quote noted atheist and Buffy fan Tom Breton
(note French surname) quoting a source. Bush told reporters, "I don't know
that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered
patriots. This is one nation under God."
Also check out a recent article in Vanity Fair by Christopher Hitchens about
the scary fundamentalism of Bush and his cronies. John Ashcroft has said, "In
America, we've had no king but Jesus." So much for separation of church and
state.
>Rose
>"Smiling green at the change all around...I get on my knees and pray we won't
>get fooled again." -- The Who
>
Meet the new boss...
Same as the old boss!
Barney
<m...@privacy.net> writes:
>> >>Nice one. Witty. BTW, hasn't it been a few decades since Communist and
>> >>atheist were considered interchangeable by the unwashed masses?
>> >
>> >Haven't you noticed? The country is regressing back to McCarthyism.
>>
>> Nonsense. And what *is* McCarthyism anyway? Is it now a catch-all
>> phrase for patriotism? Seems like it, at least as its used by the
>> "left", whoever they are? (Barney, are you one of "them"? :)
>
Afraid so. I'm a little to the left of Noam Chomsky. Did you think I was a
Young Republican? Sorry to mislead you.
>I think McCarthyism is shorthand used for an atmosphere where it's
>unreasonably easy for the label "traitor" to be thrown around.
Yes - and that's exactly what we're experiencing now. Any criticism of the
Bush administration is denounced as "treason". And we have the U.S. press
secretary bluntly telling us that "Americans are going to have to watch what
they say" from now on.
> There was a
>phrase used by my history professor a few months ago to describe France
>during some monarchy or another- "patriotic paranoia". That seems to convey
>the connotation of the word McCarthyism, at least to me.
>
An excellent phrase.
>
>--
>"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his
>own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
>-- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945
>
Too bad Orwell didn't live to see Dubya's theocratic regime. He could have
uttered the most beautiful words in the English language, "I told you so."
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked
up>some
>>> very un-American attitudes.
>>>
>>
>>Actually the French are -very- religious in general. Sort of negates
>>your argument, doesn't it?
>>
>
>
>Whaaa? Where would you possibly get this idea from? There are
>certainly lots of old churches in France, but compared to the United
>States, France is almost completely irreligious in terms of belief and
>practice.
I can verify that, as someone who knows and loves many Frogs. Most of them are
pro forma Roman Catholics but devout atheists. They still have nutty and
criminal religious laws in their secular legal system, though. Recently Michel
Houellebecq, their most famous novelist, was brought to trial for making
offensive remarks about Islam (he called it a "stupid religion.") He actually
had to go to court and defend his right to make such statements. Now he's
rooming with Salman Rushdie.
> (just compare the statistics when you ask people whether
>they "believe in God", for example).
>
The only industrialized nations that have an overwhelming religious majority
are Iran and the United States. Make whatever conclusions you will out of that
statistic.
>adios,
>alicat
>
>p.s. they probably are *all* Communists too :)
>
Someone's a little behind on Parisian fads. In France, Marxism is as dowdy as
last year's bonnet. The smart set consider Le Pen tres chic, with a dash of
anti-Americanism.
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>> I don't see
>>>the point in this thread(or in most of these OT political threads), unless
>>>it's a sort of social experiment to see how many people you can provoke.
>>>
>>
>>What's the point of *any* thread, on-topic or off-topic? To provoke
>>discussion.
>
>Yeah, but discussing religious convictions is not terribly useful, is
>it? Especially as any beliefs that are faith-based aren't really open,
>in the end, to logical discussion.
Agreed. And that, to me, makes faith-based convictions by definition invalid.
> As a Christian, I will admit
>immediately that the crux of my beliefs are *not* rational, and if
>they were reducible to logic, it wouldn't be faith, would it? So much
>for discussion.
>
I realize that such discussions are futile. But I admire any public figure who
unapologetically states that he's an atheist. Most celebrities are totally
irreligious but are too worried about their "image" to say so. Hooray for
Lance. He may have had testicular cancer, but he's got more balls than most of
us.
>I'm sure Lance has his experience and I am always an admirer of
>integrity. Perhaps he'll "catch" the faith from his wife someday,
>perhaps not, but their relationship seems honest (at least from what
>we can tell from your quotes), and that is always a GoodThing(TM).
>
I wonder how they're raising their kids, though? Something tells me that his
devout Catholic wife is calling the shots in that department. Which could be
worse. Despite my atheism, I'll admit that being raised Catholic has certain
advantages.
>In the meantime, I hope he wins (yet again) and then gives it up so
>someone else can have a chance.
>
If he does win this year, he will tie the record for consecutive wins at the
Tour de France and I believe he said that he will quit. Lance is unbelievably
fit (even by professional athlete standards) but even he is starting to feel
his age. If he went into politics afterwards, I'd vote for him.
The Babaloughesian
"Barney" <schlitz...@aol.comekingdom> wrote in message
> In article <20030722121800...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
fyl...@aol.comspam
> (Rose) writes:
>
> >
> >I hate to be Buffy-fan-esque, but can you quote a source?
> >
>
> I can do better than that. I can quote noted atheist and Buffy fan Tom
Breton
> (note French surname) quoting a source. Bush told reporters, "I don't
know
> that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considered
> patriots. This is one nation under God."
Wasn't it Bush I who said that?
Susan
(snip)
The Babaloughesian
> On 23 Jul 2003 02:28:05 GMT, schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney)
> rather bad musical):
>
> ...Paranoia can be fun....
>
> Or, a more personal favorite (NineInchNails):
>
> Bow down before the one you serve
> You're going to get what you deserve...
>
> Frankly, I felt a lot more persecuted during the Clinton years when
> ol' Bill could sic the IRS on anyone who dared suggest he wasn't the
> best president since sliced bread.
Why aren't you afraid of such a thing happening now? It seems to me any
president can do that.
NickKnight
>All this kind of thinking makes me think of a song from "Hair" (that
>rather bad musical):
"Hair" was not a bad musical. I rather enjoyed it.
forge
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>All this kind of thinking makes me think of a song from "Hair" (that
>>rather bad musical):
>
>"Hair" was not a bad musical. I rather enjoyed it.
It had a LOT of great tunes in it, and Heaven forbid, a decent plot.
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>>Yeah, but discussing religious convictions is not terribly useful, is
>>>it? Especially as any beliefs that are faith-based aren't really open,
>>>in the end, to logical discussion.
>>
>>Agreed. And that, to me, makes faith-based convictions by definition
>invalid.
>
>Oh please. I bet we could find some convictions of yours that are not
>entirely logical.
I bet we could, and we'd also find that they're invalid. My tastes (or
prejudices, if you prefer) are certainly irrational. But my beliefs and
convictions are based on some sort of evidence, whether empirical or logical.
> Everyone has them. Its not such a bad thing :)
I think irrational belief is a very bad thing. But I realize that the vast
majority of people insist on clinging to blind faith. It's a flaw in human
nature.
>>I wonder how they're raising their kids, though? Something tells me that
>his
>>devout Catholic wife is calling the shots in that department. Which could
>be
>>worse. Despite my atheism, I'll admit that being raised Catholic has
>certain
>>advantages.
>
>Well, I'm a convert so I wouldn't know. If they were married in a
>Catholic church then he supposedly had to sign on to having the kids
>raised Catholic, but who is going to enforce that nowadays?
Boy, I can tell you're not a cradle Catholic. :)
>>
>>>In the meantime, I hope he wins (yet again) and then gives it up so
>>>someone else can have a chance.
>>>
>>
>>If he does win this year, he will tie the record for consecutive wins at the
>>Tour de France and I believe he said that he will quit. Lance is
>unbelievably
>>fit (even by professional athlete standards) but even he is starting to feel
>>his age. If he went into politics afterwards, I'd vote for him.
>>
>Just because he is an atheist?
I would vote for any candidate who is an avowed atheist. It's very important
to have leaders that don't believe in an afterlife.
> Or do you know other "good" things about the guy?
He drinks wheat grass juice.
> Apparently many of the other riders on Le Tour are
>absolutely adamant about making sure he doesn't win, if they have
>anything to do with it - partially because it galls them so much to
>see someone get to that record again, but more importantly because he
>is an Amurrican.
>
Plenty of Americans would like to see him lose, too.
>Don't worry, Barney. Eventually logic will catch up with your heart
>and you'll swing right. :)
Once my faculties decay a little further and I start a family I probably will
join the Republican party. Nothing creates conservatives more than
childbearing. I've known some radical hippie bra-burning chicks who joined the
NRA and subscribed to the National Review as soon as they get knocked up.
Barney
<bak...@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> writes:
>>Why? Lance isn't responsible for any of his cycling victories. God is.
>
>Nah, God's just responsible for most OTHER athletes doing well. At
>least, if you listen to their postgame interviews. Like the fucking
>hypocrites actually believe that tripe.
>
I wonder if Kobe's faith has been shaken recently?
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>Someone's a little behind on Parisian fads. In France, Marxism is as dowdy
>as
>>last year's bonnet. The smart set consider Le Pen tres chic, with a dash of
>>anti-Americanism.
>
>Le Pen? Isn't he the anti-immigration nutcase?
Le Pen is a typical right-winger, so yes, he's a nutcase.
>I guess if one is
>anti-immigration then the U.S. must be the perfect example of what
>happens when you let all these furreners come in, virtually unchecked!
>They all start speaking English!
Not in California. Hablamos espanol.
> (not French!) and eating sandwiches!
>(not croissants - or they rename them croissantwiches! Sacre bleu!).
>
>I am happy to not know more about contemporary France.
You're missing out. It's the greatest show on Earth.
> Did you hear that whoever gets to do these things has banned the word "email"
>there?
The Culture Ministry "bans" many foreign words, hoping to maintain the purity
of the Parisian dialect, which is the equivalent of our "standard" English.
(They're just as merciless in squashing other French dialects.) In practice
all that means is that on official documents, "e-mail" won't be used. French
bureaucrats, like bureaucrats everywhere, don't speak the same language as
human beings.
> They came up with some French word
"Courriel", a coinage made by fusing "courrier electronique". It's been widely
used in Quebec for years. I think it's a cute neologism.
> so that no one would
>actually have to utter a bit of English, even though its pretty damn
>hard to get around on the 'net without resorting to it...
>
Don't worry, French computer nerds think the ban is ridiculous and will ignore
it.
Barney
<stri...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> > Nor does it make one un-American.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does, according to our current President. He has explicitly said
>that
>>> he considers the irreligious to be second-class citizens.
>>
>>Last I checked, the United States is still a democracy,
You haven't checked lately, then. Dubya wasn't democratically elected
President, he was illegally appointed by the nine nullities of the Supreme
Court, after his brother purged black voters in Florida.
>>not a theocracy.
As Dubya says, "We're one nation under God."
>
>Plutocracy?
>
That's such an ugly word. I prefer oligarchy.
Aethelrede
Alicat wrote in message ...
Stuff back in the early 60s.
I used to have the original cast LP, but my mother saw the London
production and enjoyed it, possibly because of all the nude young men... I
know she didn't mention the nude young women when she described it to me.
She outlined the plot, but I've forgotten most of it.
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2003 01:42:03 GMT, schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3cjthvko3dck264qa...@4ax.com>, Alicat
> ><isal...@ev1.net> writes:
> >
> >>>>Yeah, but discussing religious convictions is not terribly useful, is
> >>>>it? Especially as any beliefs that are faith-based aren't really
> >>>>open,
> >>>>in the end, to logical discussion.
> >>>
> >>>Agreed. And that, to me, makes faith-based convictions by definition
> >>invalid.
> >>
> >>Oh please. I bet we could find some convictions of yours that are not
> >>entirely logical.
> >
> >I bet we could, and we'd also find that they're invalid. My tastes (or
> >prejudices, if you prefer) are certainly irrational. But my beliefs and
> >convictions are based on some sort of evidence, whether empirical or
> >logical.
>
> Thats too bad. Humility is very much derived from realizing how
> hopeless humans are....:) (unless you think humility is a bad thing?)
> Why are convictions invalid because they are not entirely logical?
> And why do you think that faith based convictions are not based on any
> sort of empirical evidence (even if its not logical)? After all, St.
> Paul was struck blind on the road to Damascus (he's my favorite saint,
> so I bring him up whenever possible), and then had his sight restored
> upon baptism - seems pretty damn empirical to me
No, that's just a story in an ancient book. Why is that any more
empirical than the stories of the Greek gods on Mount Olympus?
Or the story of the Easter Bunny?
NickKnight
>Its sorta like rocky horror. Two 'innocent young people' stumble upon
>some hippies, begging for money, in the park.
What version of Rocky Horror did you see?
BTW, did you see ASH in Rocky Horror (after all this is a
Buffy group?)
Rose
>For instance, I can, and with some confidence, state that there is no
>solid evidence that Jesus even existed. >He's a fable.
Nonreligious historians contend that he did exist.
Rose
"A fool and his money are soon parted." -- Someone famous.
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> What *is* the story of the Easter Bunny? (I didn't know there was a
> story!)
>
> The Bible was written by actual humans about actual humans.
Really? That burning bush was an actual human? Those angels it mentions
and that omnipotent god featured prominently in the opening chapters
whipping up the universe like a bowl of cosmic hamburger helper are
actual humans?
> Its not about the adventures of made up beings, as with the Greek gods.
Hopw is Zeus any different than the god that kept talking to Moses and
sending plagues?
And I'm not gonna even get started on all the nonsense in Revelations.
In any event, even if I accept for the moment that you're right, how
does the bible being a story about humans make it any more real than
anything other story about humans?
Tom Clancy writes books about humans, not made up beings. Are all his
books true and empirical?
> And thence (whichever side of the above argument you come down on) we
> arrive at a "faith based conclusion", which is not and never will be
> logical. You simply can't consider it "faith" if there is no internal
> leap of trust towards something not proven. In my example, I tend to
> believe the story of St. Paul's conversion because my faith, now
> coupled with my experience, gives that story the resonance of truth.
Exactly and the people who believed in Zeus said the same things about
their faith in their gods. Same with the followers of Quetzalcoatl,
Odin, Kali, Allah, Osiris and Yahweh.
They can't all be right.
forge
wrote:
>And I'm not gonna even get started on all the nonsense in Revelations.
The Revelations of St. John the Divinely Old, Addled and Probably
Lead-Poisoned?
forge
>>It had a LOT of great tunes in it, and Heaven forbid, a decent plot.
>
>
>Remind me (and I actually have seen this thing) - what was the plot?
>;)
Hee! Um, yeah - it's about, uh...
Chris Zabel
Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. Almost no
serious scholar in archaelogy believes that Jesus didn't exist at all. You
can question the divinity of Jesus but saying he was an invented fable
stretches the bounds of credibility. Denying the existence of Jesus as a
historical person would be like denying the existence of Plato.
Aethelrede
Alicat wrote in message ...
>
>>On 24 Jul 2003 18:48:07 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
>>
>>>ST wrote:
>>>
>>>>For instance, I can, and with some confidence, state that there is no
>>>>solid evidence that Jesus even existed. >He's a fable.
>>>
>>>Nonreligious historians contend that he did exist.
>>
>>nothing solid to say he did.
>>
>>Its just as possible there was someone named Ulysses, someone named
>>Arthur, who was a king, and a thief who lived in sherwood forest.
>>
>>None of which makes the stories told about them anything more than
>>myth, legend, or as I said fable.
>>
>>Most of what is in the bible is at best, hearsay, at worst, blatant
>>propaganda.
>>
>>Doesn't mean all of it is a LIE, but we don't *know* any more about
>>Jesus than about the Greek gods.
>>
>>I'm not dismissing Jesus, I'm saying if one dismisses other gods one
>>really has nothing more solid to stand on with Jesus.
>>
>>st
>
>No, you are wrong. (Feel "disrespected" yet?)
>There is at least one, if not more, specific mention of Jesus bar
>Joseph, the Nazarene preacher, in Imperial Roman letters that are
>actual historical documents.
Where?
There is actual solid proof that someone called Artur or Arturus because
items have been dug up in Britain with that name on them, dating to about
the right post-Roman period, and connected with defence against the Saxon
invaders.
But that crap in the bible? There is no physical proof for any of it.
The slavery in Egypt? No way. The passover thing? No. The 40 years in the
desert? No. King David? King Solomon? No and No. There may have been an
Israel, but it wasn't the great empire we've all been told about.
All made up stories, just as the "prophesies" were written years,
sometimes hundreds of years, after the events.
It may be significant that every scrap of evidence that supports
anything in the bible has been dug up by Israeli archaeologists or hard core
christian fundamentalists. And they just might have a certain bias on the
subject, don't you think?
Don Sample
Chris Zabel <alep...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The most important extra-biblical historical references to Jesus are by the
> Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.
Neither of whom were contemporaries of Jesus. They both just report
that there's a new cult in town, telling stories about some miracle
worker who'd died 50 or more years earlier.
Josephus' history of the jews was written about 93AD. And it was
*rewritten* by 3rd or 4th century Christians to make his description of
the the new Christ cult match with their version of how they thought
things should be.
Tacitus wrote in the early 2nd century AD, even later than Josephus,
and he just tells how Nero tried to blame the new cult that had come
out of Judea for the burning of Rome.
> Almost no
> serious scholar in archaelogy believes that Jesus didn't exist at all. You
> can question the divinity of Jesus but saying he was an invented fable
> stretches the bounds of credibility. Denying the existence of Jesus as a
> historical person would be like denying the existence of Plato.
Plato on the other had had a lot of contemporaries who wrote about him,
and their writings have survived along with his.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Don Sample
<stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually the more apt comparison would be Socrates, since Plato
> actually wrote 'about Socrates'. And yes there are people who don't
> believe Socrates was an actual person and there is much more in the
> way of evidence that he was.
>
> st
Plato isn't the only person who wrote about Socrates. Xenophone wrote
about him too, and like Plato he wrote as a person who had been one of
Socrates' pupils.
Don Sample
<stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> *cough*
>
> shroud of turin
>
> *cough*
>
> st
> (sorry hairball)
You mean that scrap of cloth that first turned up in the 14th century,
was painted using ochre and vermilion pigments, and pretty much every
scientific test done on it, such as carbon dating, has shown was
probably made some time during the 14th century? That Shroud of Turin?
Tomi Lindberg
> There is at least one, if not more, specific mention of Jesus bar Joseph,
> the Nazarene preacher, in Imperial Roman letters that are actual
> historical documents.
And your point is? How does this prove anything about the fundamentals of
christianity?
--
Tomi Lindberg
-----
"So if a war comes, and the Church is on one side of it, we must be on the
other, no matter what strange allies we find ourselves bound to."
Philip Pullman - The Subtle Knife
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:22:35 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com>
> Well, actually maybe they can.
I don't think so. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, most of the big
religions in the world, all pretty much have jealous deities that
proclaim themselves to be the end all, be all and everyone's else's gods
to be false.
There's pretty much no way to reconcile that with the idea of everyone
being right.
> I guess what I would find unacceptable is that the material world is
> "all there is".
Why? And who's to say what the extent of the material world is? There
could be other dimensions of which we are unaware but that don't
necessarily include the worship and adulation of a deity anymore than
this one does.
As someone once said, the supernatural is only the natural that hasn't
been explained yet.
Primitive people watched a solar eclispse in abject terror, attributing
the darkening sun to the wrath of an angry god. Now we know it's just a
shadow. Nothing supernatural about it. Not caused by the tantrums of
some pissed off sky-being.
When the basic celestial mechanics of our solar system were mapped out,
the supernatural instantly the became the natural and mundane.
> Even modern physics calls that into question.
> Obviously I have chosen a particular philosophical/religious system
> because *for me* it is more true, based on my experience. I trust in
> God that I picked correctly, and leave everyone else to do or think as
> they trust best as well.
The only catch is that your particular god and belief system says that
all those other people who picked differently than you did will suffer
eternal torment because of it.
And, of course, their belief systems pretty much reserve the same fate
for you.
> So, when do I get the story about the Easter Bunny?
Ask Anya. It's far too disturbing to go into here.
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:33:49 +0300, Tomi Lindberg
> <tomi.l...@auriamail.net> wrote:
>
> >Alicat wrote:
> >
> >> There is at least one, if not more, specific mention of Jesus bar
> >> Joseph, the Nazarene preacher, in Imperial Roman letters that are actual
> >> historical documents.
> >
> >And your point is? How does this prove anything about the fundamentals
> >of christianity?
>
>
> It doesn't in the slightest. I was just replying to the idea that
> there is no proof outside the Bible of anything in it....
>
> This is obviously a very silly thread at this point because people who
> are antagonistically inclined against anything religious couldn't care
> less if the Second Coming happened tomorrow - they would just chalk it
> down to hallucinations or whatever.
Actually, if god provided me with at least as much proof of his
existence as I have for the existence of my brother's cat, I'd be a
stone cold believer.
So far, that standard of proof hasn't come close to being met.
The Christian god was apparently real big on grand displays of power and
omnipotence to the primitive people of the bible but he's been strangely
silent on the topic of huge miracles like parting the Red Sea and the
like in the last 1000 years or so.
Seems like the smarter we get as a species and the greater our ability
to verify or discount outlandish claims, the less these "miracles" occur.
Interesting.
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>>Oh please. I bet we could find some convictions of yours that are not
>>>entirely logical.
>>
>>I bet we could, and we'd also find that they're invalid. My tastes (or
>>prejudices, if you prefer) are certainly irrational. But my beliefs and
>>convictions are based on some sort of evidence, whether empirical or
>logical.
>
>Thats too bad. Humility is very much derived from realizing how
>hopeless humans are....:) (unless you think humility is a bad thing?)
Not sure what you're driving at here. You think I'm arrogant for claiming that
I have reasons for believing things? That's about the most modest statement I
could possibly make about myself.
The Church is correct in listing Pride as one of the deadly sins, but I don't
think that's my problem. (Sloth is my big sin.) Certainly, humility is an
important *social* value, but on the spiritual plane it's not that important.
>Why are convictions invalid because they are not entirely logical?
I didn't say they had to be "entirely" logical. But I need minimal evidence,
whether empirical or rational, to believe in something. But there isn't a
*shred* of evidence for God or any intelligent force behind the universe.
>And why do you think that faith based convictions are not based on any
>sort of empirical evidence (even if its not logical)? After all, St.
>Paul was struck blind on the road to Damascus (he's my favorite saint,
>so I bring him up whenever possible),
Paul truly was the anti-Christ in that he despised the Jesus of the synoptic
Gospels and distorted all of His teachings.
> and then had his sight restored
>upon baptism - seems pretty damn empirical to me, even if you want to
>challenge the logic of his attribution of all this to "Jaysus".
I have hefty visions of my own, after drinking 96 beers, but when sober I
realize they were just hallucinations. Having faith is like being drunk; the
world has yet to sober up, unfortunately.
>>
>>> Everyone has them. Its not such a bad thing :)
>>
>>I think irrational belief is a very bad thing. But I realize that the vast
>>majority of people insist on clinging to blind faith. It's a flaw in human
>>nature.
>>
>No, I would think its just the opposite, despite its obvious downside.
>Hope, after all, springs eternal and only humans truly hope. Would you
>do without that?
>
In other words, you should believe in whatever makes you feel good? False hope
is better than truth? Sorry, but to me truth is the highest spiritual value,
and if you check the New Testament I believe you'll find that your favorite
prophet said something along the lines of "The truth shall set you free." (All
the same, He wimped out when PP asked Him to define what exactly truth was.
What a wuss!)
>>Boy, I can tell you're not a cradle Catholic. :)
>
>I'm increasingly glad of that, given the cradle Catholics I know. They
>are either entirely unbelievers or mostly sickenly casual about their
>faith. Either of which makes me a little sad. After all, Jesus
>condemned the lukewarm more than the adamantly wrong. At least my
>parents (ardent atheists) have the courage of their convictions.
The wishy-washiness of Americans on this subject drives me up the wall. I'm
convinced that most people are atheists, but they claim to believe in God just
to be on the safe side. But they certainly don't have "faith"; as you say,
they don't have the courage of their convictions.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>In the meantime, I hope he wins (yet again) and then gives it up so
>>>>>someone else can have a chance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If he does win this year, he will tie the record for consecutive wins at
>the
>>>>Tour de France and I believe he said that he will quit. Lance is
>>>unbelievably
>>>>fit (even by professional athlete standards) but even he is starting to
>feel
>>>>his age. If he went into politics afterwards, I'd vote for him.
>>>>
>>>Just because he is an atheist?
>>
>>I would vote for any candidate who is an avowed atheist. It's very
>important
>>to have leaders that don't believe in an afterlife.
>
>Because? (I am truly interested)
Because someone who's convinced that his constituents have immortal souls won't
be very concerned about improving the quality of life for their brief worldly
existence. Leaders should be completely focussed on *this* world, because it's
all we've got.
It's no secret that politicians (many of them in clerical garb) have used
religion for centuries to distract people from their misery, and to prevent
them from demanding the things they deserve. The message is, "So what if
you're suffering now? If you keep your trap shut and do as you're told, you'll
go to a really neat eternal Paradise once you drop dead." That's why a noted
economist once referred to religion as the opium of the masses.
>>
>>> Or do you know other "good" things about the guy?
>>
>>He drinks wheat grass juice.
>>
>I *just* had dinner! You fiend!
>
>>> Apparently many of the other riders on Le Tour are
>>>absolutely adamant about making sure he doesn't win, if they have
>>>anything to do with it - partially because it galls them so much to
>>>see someone get to that record again, but more importantly because he
>>>is an Amurrican.
>>>
>>
>>Plenty of Americans would like to see him lose, too.
>
>Because? (It can't be the "Blame America First" Crowd because they
>don't care about athletics, I think. So, what? Because he is an
>atheist? I don't think that has been widely publicized, but what do I
>know of the power of the right wing Christian conspiracy folk?)
No, I'm just talking about envy, pure and simple. All of the US cyclists are
well aware that Lance Armstrong is the only biker most Americans have ever
heard of, and nobody likes to watch anyone else succeed as much as Lance has.
Another sad fact about human nature.
>>
>>>Don't worry, Barney. Eventually logic will catch up with your heart
>>>and you'll swing right. :)
>>
>>Once my faculties decay a little further and I start a family I probably
>will
>>join the Republican party. Nothing creates conservatives more than
>>childbearing. I've known some radical hippie bra-burning chicks who joined
>the
>>NRA and subscribed to the National Review as soon as they got knocked up.
>
>You are speaking truth here mon, without even realizing it probably.
>Its absolutely amazing, the power of the protect-the-child instinct.
>Makes you want to hang up every suspected child molester by his/her
>toes for a long session with Uday Hussars.
>
And as soon as you have a kid, suddenly everyone else on Earth who hasn't had a
kid is an enemy of society and a blot on the landscape.
>My transformation, being a very late breeder, actually took place when
>I spent much time abroad (in Eastern Europe before the Wall fell, and
>then in India/Nepal, etc.). That socialist dream be a sad one.
Keep the faith, Comrade. Faith is good, remember?
Barney
>>The most important extra-biblical historical references to Jesus are by the
>>Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. Almost no
>>serious scholar in archaelogy believes that Jesus didn't exist at all. You
>>can question the divinity of Jesus but saying he was an invented fable
>>stretches the bounds of credibility. Denying the existence of Jesus as a
>>historical person would be like denying the existence of Plato.
>>
>
>Actually the more apt comparison would be Socrates, since Plato
>actually wrote 'about Socrates'. And yes there are people who don't
>believe Socrates was an actual person and there is much more in the
>way of evidence that he was.
>
With Socrates, the question is, how accurately did Plato depict him and
represent his views? Plato was a very great artist - a dramatist, actually,
and as a literary creation Socrates ranks with Hamlet. (In this respect, Jesus
is far inferior. As a fictional character, He ranks with, say, Harry Potter.)
We'll never know how much of the philosopher is pure embellishment on the part
of his disciples, though at this point it doesn't really matter. The same goes
for Jesus.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> >Alicat wrote in message ...
> >>Remind me (and I actually have seen this thing) - what was the
> >>plot?
>
> Its sorta like rocky horror. Two 'innocent young people' stumble
> upon some hippies, begging for money, in the park.
>
> Lots of funny stuff.
>
> The young man in question has been drafted and wants to do his duty.
> The hippies try and convince him otherwise and introduce him to a
> world without inhibitions.
>
> Later a bunch of stuff happens and the lead hippy guy replaces him at
> boot camp, I think so he can see his girlfriend or something, but
> suddenly they get the order to ship overseas and hippy boy ends up
> overseas.... It doesn't end well for him...
>
> There are are some other subplots, but its basically an antiwar, peace
> and love fest, but with a surprising edge to it, which doesn't end up
> being completely 'pro-hippy', in the sense it does deal with some
> things realistically.
>
> Its really a fun movie/play, and I'm not even a fan of musicals.
Note that that's the plot of the movie, not the play (which I was in
in college). In the play, Claude (the "young man" referred to above)
is a hippie from the beginning, and he (not Berger) winds up going to
(and dying in) Viet Nam, although both take place during the final
song ("Flesh Failures").
The play doesn't really have a "plot", just sort of a "progression",
as you watch the change from the peppy "Hell no! We won't go!" of the
"hey guys, let's protest" naive freshmen at the beginning to the
determined "Hell no, we won't go!" of people who are truly worried
about being sent off to die. At least in our production.
Oh, and I don't believe "Paranoia can be fun" is a line from either
the play or the movie. In the play at least, it's "masturbation" that
"can be fun".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking
|on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |is still there.
(650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:08:02 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <l6q2ivs11291fnash...@4ax.com>,
> >isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:33:49 +0300, Tomi Lindberg
> >> <tomi.l...@auriamail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alicat wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There is at least one, if not more, specific mention of Jesus bar
> >> >> Joseph, the Nazarene preacher, in Imperial Roman letters that are
> >> >> actual historical documents.
> >> >
> >> >And your point is? How does this prove anything about the
> >> >fundamentals of christianity?
> >> It doesn't in the slightest. I was just replying to the idea that
> >> there is no proof outside the Bible of anything in it....
> >>
> >> This is obviously a very silly thread at this point because people who
> >> are antagonistically inclined against anything religious couldn't care
> >> less if the Second Coming happened tomorrow - they would just chalk it
> >> down to hallucinations or whatever.
> >
> >Actually, if god provided me with at least as much proof of his
> >existence as I have for the existence of my brother's cat, I'd be a
> >stone cold believer.
> >
> Since I can't help myself....
>
> Are you breathing?
Yes.
> Where did your first breath come from?
From my lungs.
Do you
> believe in love? :)
Sure. Just like I believe in other emotions. Happiness, anger, despair,
rage...
What's your point?
> These are all proof of "God" to me,
I can't see why that would be but if it works for you, fine.
> >So far, that standard of proof hasn't come close to being met.
>
> No, if you need to touch something to know its real, then again, do
> you believe in love? Or is that just some biochemical reaction?
It is a biochemical reaction. Why does that bother you so much? How come
you can't enjoy being in love with someone unless you elevate it to some
mysterious spiritual level?
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:03:55 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> <major snippage>
> >>
> >> Well, actually maybe they can.
> >
> >I don't think so. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, most of the big
> >religions in the world, all pretty much have jealous deities that
> >proclaim themselves to be the end all, be all and everyone's else's gods
> >to be false.
>
> Well, in my universe, a whole lot of that proclamation is more human
> egotism: *I* believe in this God, and since *I* am more enlightened
> than you, *my* God must be the real God....etc.
It's not just human egotism. The fundamental foundations of your
religion proclaim this:
"I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me."
Sound familiar?
> >There's pretty much no way to reconcile that with the idea of everyone
> >being right.
>
> You are right that you can't reconcile the conflicting claims of
> "rightness" that the various religions make with this idea. Doesn't
> mean it isn't true. Jesus said: "In my Father's house there are many
> mansions."
And his father pretty much said the exact opposite. So even the theology
within this one religion can't reconcile with itself.
Certainly not anything I'm gonna devote my life to.
Chris Zabel
"st" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t653ivs49q5if05op...@4ax.com...
>
> I said there was 'no conclusive proof' that he existed.
>
> What you are saying about 'serious scholars' is simply ad hominem.
> There are plenty of very scholarly articles on the 'question' of
> Jesus's existense.
>
> The following link is one I found rather quickly in google, so I
> didn't even have to go very far to find people who 'question' his
> existense. Whether you think they are 'scholarly enough'... well...
> thats your opinion.... and you are welcome to it.
>
> Here we go:
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
I'm not saying that there are no naysayers to Jesus' existence, just that
the modern consensus opinion in the field of biblical archaelogy and history
is that Jesus did exist...opinions to the contrary are not mainstream
views(even from atheists in the field).
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do
so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as
axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Ceaser. It
is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-myth' theories."
- F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at
Manchester University.
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents
of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed
for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end
of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries" -
Encyclopedia Britannica
"...one is obliged to say, 'Here was a man. This part of the tale could
not have been invented.'" - Atheist H.G. Wells in his book Outline of
History about Jesus
Tomi Lindberg
> Are you breathing?
Quite sure I am.
> Where did your first breath come from?
Didn't really get the point here. Read biology and learn how people procreate if
that's what you meant.
> Do you believe in love? :)
I believe love is a term people usually use to describe certain kind(s) of
emotions and bonds between individuals.
> These are all proof of "God" to me, but I'm not into the big daddy in heaven
> concept so much, being an actual grown up and all.
How do these prove god? If you're trying to say that god must exist because life
exists I'm happy to tell you there's no sense in that - if you can't believe that
life could have began by accident or to possibility that universe might have born
virtually from nothingness how can you believe that god could have come to be in
the first place?
> No, if you need to touch something to know its real, then again, do you believe
> in love? Or is that just some biochemical reaction?
Very likely it's a biochemical reaction of sorts (even if it happens to be
something else I doubt that the god offers the most logic explanation). And I
believe in quite a few scientific "things" I haven't actually seen because they
offer firm and logical explanations to many phenomenons and inventions - on the
other hand I haven't yet seen anything that requires god to work.
> I think there have been lots and lots of miracles on just a grand scale but of a
> different sort, as we are not the "primitive people of the bible" anymore, are
> we?
Name few of these miracles. And if I understood correctly you're offering our
scientific advancement as a whole to be a miracle - right? Isn't it just a bit
more simple explanation that people have enough intelligence to learn and invent?
Tomi Lindberg
> I just read through all the sections in the Catechism regarding eternal
> torment, condemnation, etc. Apparently its really very self selecting!
For condemnation to be self selecting
1) god should give an undeniable evidence of himself
2) god should give people the utter knowledge of all possibilities there are
for afterlife and how to select one for you
3) god should present the above evidence and knowledge to each human (he
should have done it each human _ever_ lived)
4) god should give each and every people a chance to choose his fate
> Since my God isn't interested in condemning anyone, a person has to
> basically condemn themselves by consciously separating themselves from God
> (and the only "unforgivable sin" is that of denying God) and sticking to it
> up to and including death.
If your god isn't interested in condemning anyone why did he choose to
condemn some in the first place? If denying god is unforgivable sin isn't it
quite strange that bible tells us that people can't have faith on their own -
god chooses who will have faith and who will not?
Tomi Lindberg
> there is no scientific explanation for why certain fertilized eggs actually develop
> into a human baby and others don't develop
No comment on this one - I don't have enough expertise on the matter.
> Most of which (those emotions and bonds) are completely inexplicable, aren't they? I
> mean that everything can't be reduced down into a biochemical or sustaining-the-tribe
> explanation, so I use love as a good example of that which isn't mechanistic or
> materialistic in our universe.
As we are (most likely) just a pile of matter I don't see any reason why in the end
everything in us couldn't be reduced to biochemical reactions (that would be self
awareness in extreme).
> What does that mean "God could have come to be here"?
I didn't say "here." I'm only referring to one of the common arguments of the
creatonists - that there must be some active intelligence behind all this, that world
just couldn't be born out nothing by accident. Strangely that doesn't seem to be
problem to god.
> I thought the very definition of God, with a capital G,
Don't use caps with religious figures, sorry.
> is as a first principle - that which was before everything else and is not part of
> that which is, but creates it.
So either he was born out of nothingness or he's always been - whichever you choose
it's simpler (and thus more probable according to Occam's razor) to assume it happened
to universe.
> Life beginning by accident? Pull the other one. What for? Explain me that....
For no reason at all. That's what accident is.
> Sure, but you must be familiar with the word "inspiration". I think people have more
> ability that you give them credit for - I think people have connections you would
> deride.
It's I who give credit to people while you're giving it to some mysterious forces :-/
Tomi Lindberg
> >For condemnation to be self selecting
> >
> >1) god should give an undeniable evidence of himself
> >2) god should give people the utter knowledge of all possibilities there are
> >for afterlife and how to select one for you
> >3) god should present the above evidence and knowledge to each human (he
> >should have done it each human _ever_ lived)
> >4) god should give each and every people a chance to choose his fate
>
> Um, I would suggest that a whole lot of people have decided that all of the
> above conditions have been met.
What?!? I for example haven't received any info from god about my afterlife. Also
there are very different opinions what one must do to go to heaven as well as who
go to hell so the message really hasn't reached even all of modern men.
> Its one of those damn paradoxes again, isn't it?
Must be. Another reminder for me to stay away from religious people.
> However, if one really believed that faith was desirable, it seems that if you
> act as if you had faith, it is granted to you
But what about us who don't believe it's desirable at all?
> So it is still up to the human to respond to the God who never ceases to call to
> the human or to sustain him/her, despite that person's belief or lack thereof.
Quite weak call for omnipotent being as I've never heard or felt a damn thing.
> I realize all this is circular, and the justifications presume that one buys
> into the system to begin with.
Yes it is - that's why it makes no sense at all. If something has stupidity as a
requirement I'll try to avoid it at all cost.
Tomi Lindberg
> On the other hand, requiring proof for everything is also a foolish human conceit
Foolish why?
> (I mean, my cat doesn't care anything about the law of gravity
But probably cares a lot about gravity as a phenomenon - proof doesn't equal with
explanation but in the end it hopefully leads to it.
> No, I would disagree. On the spiritual plane, humility is one of the greatest
> virtues, because it leads to an awareness of one's reliance on God.
And the good in that would be...
> I think the entire universe is miraculously, wonderfully made and not even
> possibly accidental in its existence. But I guess thats just me!
Yet you believe in god that is even more miraculous but still must have come to be
on its own - don't you see the paradox here?
> And what truth "shall set you free"? Doesn't the idea that there is nothing beyond
> this "mortal coil" simply trap you in a very limited realm of possibilities?
In a way yes, but I don't see it as a reason to make up a fantasy which expands
those limits.
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> Okay, we should agree to disagree, not the least because obviously I
> am more comfortable with the idea of paradox than you to begin with.
> As B. Clinton would say, it does depend on what "is" is, and in this
> case I would suggest that what one's definition of God is makes all
> the difference in one's interpretation of the commandment as cited
> above.
If god actually exists, then it's not *your* definition that matters.
It's what he/she/it actually *is* that matters.
If you don't like the stripes on a zebra, you can redefine it till
you're blue in the face but it ain't gonna change. Likewise, if god
exists, it is what it is and no amount of definition to suit your tastes
will change it.
The only way the "everyone gets to define god according to what makes
them comfortable" system works is if there really is no god.
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:23:38 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <pqf3ivg71b3mtfa7p...@4ax.com>,
> >isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> >> No, if you need to touch something to know its real, then again, do
> >> you believe in love? Or is that just some biochemical reaction?
> >
> >It is a biochemical reaction. Why does that bother you so much? How come
> >you can't enjoy being in love with someone unless you elevate it to some
> >mysterious spiritual level?
>
>
> LOL! I don't "elevate" anything to a mysterious, spiritual level - but
> some things, including love in my estimation, are more than the sum of
> their parts.
How do you know love is more than a biochemical reaction? It sounds like
you're just more comfortable thinking of it that way because it sounds
more romantic or pleasureable or sophisticated or whatever, not that you
have any rational basis for saying it's so.
> I don't experience life as mechanistic and pre-determined
> - I am more than an animal, reacting with primitive instincts.
Sure, you're an animal that has evolved the intelligence to act in spite
of its instincts, but an animal nevertheless.
> What is
> the evolutionary point of self-awareness if that self is just another
> flesh clad robot?
Who is claiming to be a robot here? Are you suggesting that if someone
doesn't believe in god, they have no free will. That they are
essentially one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's T-101s?
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> No, I would disagree. On the spiritual plane, humility is one of the
> greatest virtues, because it leads to an awareness of one's reliance
> on God.
Why does discovering your reliance on some incorporeal being equate to a
virtue?
Why wouldn't realizing you can live your life just fine relying on
yourself and/or your family be a much more positive realization?
> I wasn't talking about false hope, but real hope - that which keeps
> people thinking that people are getting better as a species (I don't
> subscribe to that one, but you definitely see a lot of it in humanist
> circles, and that predominates in the academic world, anyway). Or the
> hope of finding one's true love or the hope of bringing children into
> the world (on purpose).
All of which can be accomplished without a god concept.
>
> And I certainly don't experience that I have the beliefs I do because
> they make me "feel good". Rather, they help me to "be good" even when
> I don't feel like it.
>
> And what truth "shall set you free"? Doesn't the idea that there is
> nothing beyond this "mortal coil" simply trap you in a very limited
> realm of possibilities?
No more so than anyone else. In fact, it makes me appreciate this life
and all the wonders in it all the more because I know this is it.
There's no glorious paradise waiting on the other side if only I can
stick out here long enough.
> Interesting. I would think that a politician who is convinced that
> *he/she* has an immortal soul would be more concerned about improving
> the quality of life, etc. etc. because of his/her own immortal soul
> and the results of his/her actions as impacting on his/her eternal
> destiny, yadda yadda.
But Christianity doesn't teach salvation through works. It teaches that
acceptance of Jesus is all you need for salvation. Therefore, a
politician could lie, cheat, steal and plunder the wealth of the nation
and then find Jesus in his later years or on his deathbed and all will
be forgiven.
NickKnight
And he is a commiunist who is going to win the Tour De
France tomorrow. He holds the lead now and should
hold it through the remainder of the race.
--------------------------------------------
To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
my e-mail address.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
BTR1701
isal...@ev1.net wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:09:38 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com>
> So is free will simply a by product of the "intelligence to act in
> spite of its (our) instincts"?
All evidence says yes.
> And how does self awareness fit into this?
I don't know what you mean by "fit into". Humans are self-aware because
our brains have evolved to give us the ability to be self-aware.
> Why would human beings then have any more rights than any animal if
> all that differentiates us is overcoming our instincts
Because we say so. If tigers had evolved into self-awareness, they'd be
the ones at the top of the heap and dispensing out rights according to
what they saw fit.
Every species acts in its own self-interest. We're just better at it
than any of the others.
> (from time to time anyway - and apparently we aren't
> very good at it, are we?)
Well, not if your last name is Clinton, no.
Tom Breton
[attributions lost]
> >>The most important extra-biblical historical references to Jesus are by the
> >>Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.
This is the sort of thing they teach in religion class. That's what
they did in my (Catholic) high school. But looking at it as an adult,
it is extremely flimsy evidence.
Josephus makes two references in The War Of The Jews (WOTJ), in vols
18 and 20.
The reference in 18, the famed Testimonium Josephus, has probably been
edited later to make it appear stronger. Compare it with the passage
beginning in Luke 24:19 (as pointed out by Dr. G. J. Goldberg), almost
certainly copied from Josephus (Josephus wrote WOTJ earlier, about 78
CE). (For more on this, see Luke and Josephus,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html)
Ask yourself why the Luke author would copy most of it but leave out
"He was the Christ" and "If it be lawful to call him a man". The
likely answer: Because that text didn't exist at the time.
Also note that Origen (died 254) heatedly attacks Josephus for denying
the divinity of Jesus, strongly suggesting that the Testimonium did
not say then what it says now. It probably changed sometime between
Origen and Eusebius (died c. 340). (See Robert Eisler on the
Testimonium Flavianum: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/eisler.htm)
But more fatally, the Testimonium immediately precedes an obvious
fairy tale. As well as allegory, this tale contains at least one
deliberate falsehood. (The temple of Isis was not destroyed during
this era, a fact that Josephus was aware of). This is not where a
serious account of Jesus would be placed, either then or later. One
might as well put it in the middle of Little Red Riding Hood.
It is worth noting that this tale echoes the Testimonium somewhat: it
is about a man impersonating a god (Anubis). Again, hardly the milieu
for a serious account of Jesus' divinity.
Following it is a second (or third, perhaps) allegorical tale.
Josephus plainly intended for them to go together. To quote Joe
Atwill,
[I]t should be noted that the two tales that follow the
Testimonium are oddly tangential from the narration Josephus has
been engaged in up unto it, which describes Pontius Pilates'
military activity in Judea. They stand out both because of their
location, Rome, as well as their lightweight, ribald substance.
Both describe some sort of deception put over on someone, first the
allegorical "Paulina" and second the Jews, and resulting calamity.
Josephus may have intended them as different allegorical tellings of
the same story. In any case, the fact that the Testimonium Josephus
is grouped with one (maybe two) tellings of a deception put over on
the Jews sheds a very suspicious light on its surface claim about
Jesus.
So the 18 reference, if anything, hurts the case for a historical
Jesus. But since Josephus has the credibility of a fruit fly, his
evidence, positive or negative, does not have great weight.
The second reference in 20 is almost certainly a later insertion.
Note how the passage flows much more naturally without it, and what an
odd place it is to suddenly describe Jesus as divine, where naturally
he would be describing James. It may be a marginal note captured into
the text.
Tacitus is almost certainly just reporting what Christians of the time
told him. Even if the records had survived the intervening fires in
Rome, it's unlikely that he'd have troubled himself to dig them up for
a minor point in his history. And in any case, Roman records of
Jesus' execution would not have called Jesus "Christ".
So that's one negative and two zeros.
There are other references sometimes quoted, such as Suetonius, but
they're even weaker and even if taken at face value wouldn't prove
Jesus' existence.
All of this is expanded on at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
(Historicity Of Jesus)
> >>Almost no
> >>serious scholar in archaelogy believes that Jesus didn't exist at
> >>all.
Actually, _The Jesus Puzzle_ by Earl Doherty makes a very good case.
There's a review at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml
Other scholars have argued this, as well.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
Tomi Lindberg
> So is free will simply a by product of the "intelligence to act in spite of
> its (our) instincts"? or something else? And how does self awareness fit into
> this?
This is how I see this.
Self awareness enables us to understand the causalities (effects we have on our
surroundings and the effects of our surroundings to us) and makes us see
ourselves as individuals. I believe it's a requirement for what's commonly
called free will.
Free will comes through realization of our needs (defined by instincts) and self
awareness. It gives us the ability to consciously compare what our instincts
tell us to do in terms of cause and effect and make choices based on that
comparison.
> Why would human beings then have any more rights than any animal if all that
> differentiates us is overcoming our instincts (from time to time anyway - and
> apparently we aren't very good at it, are we?)?
No one has any rights per se - they're all artificial.
forge
>> It may be significant that every scrap of evidence that supports
>>anything in the bible has been dug up by Israeli archaeologists or hard core
>>christian fundamentalists. And they just might have a certain bias on the
>>subject, don't you think?
>
>
>*cough*
>
>shroud of turin
>
>*cough*
*cough*
proven to be a 700-year-old hoax
*cough*
forge
>>>*cough*
>>>
>>>shroud of turin
>>>
>>>*cough*
>>
>>*cough*
>>
>>proven to be a 700-year-old hoax
>>
>>*cough*
>
>*cough*
>
>You don't say...
>
>*cough*
Sorry, you forgot the "I was being ironic" symbol... heh
Roger Pearse
> [attributions lost]
> > >>The most important extra-biblical historical references to Jesus are by the
> > >>Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.
>
> This is the sort of thing they teach in religion class. That's what
> they did in my (Catholic) high school. But looking at it as an adult,
> it is extremely flimsy evidence.
>
> Josephus makes two references in The War Of The Jews (WOTJ), in vols
> 18 and 20.
>
> The reference in 18, the famed Testimonium Josephus, has probably been
> edited later to make it appear stronger. Compare it with the passage
> beginning in Luke 24:19 (as pointed out by Dr. G. J. Goldberg), almost
> certainly copied from Josephus (Josephus wrote WOTJ earlier, about 78
> CE). (For more on this, see Luke and Josephus,
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html)
>
> Ask yourself why the Luke author would copy most of it but leave out
> "He was the Christ" and "If it be lawful to call him a man". The
> likely answer: Because that text didn't exist at the time.
The authenticity or otherwise of the TF is a matter of dispute among
scholars. Almost universally regarded as an interpolation a century
ago, the tide of opinion has moved the other way over the last
century, or so I gather, with most scholars now considering it genuine
but corrupt. A paper on how views have changed was read to the SBL
conference by Dr. Alice Whealey a few years back, and is online at the
academic Josephus site, josephus.yorku.ca. A lengthy review was
published in the JTS 52.2 by Dr. J. Carleton Paget, which reviewed
every conceivable point of view.
This idea about Luke, by the way, is strictly a fringe idea. No-one
believes it outside of those with an agenda to peddle.
> Also note that Origen (died 254) heatedly attacks Josephus for denying
> the divinity of Jesus,
No. He simply mentions that Josephus was not a believer.
> strongly suggesting that the Testimonium did not say then what it says now.
Not in fact inevitable. The 'proofs' one finds in atheist literature
mostly do not demonstrate what they are supposed to. This is actually
the general problem with *all* the evidence -- it's inconclusive.
> But more fatally, the Testimonium immediately precedes an obvious
> fairy tale.
This seems improbable. The scandal seems pretty plain to me; and even
were it fictional, it would not impinge on any other portion of the
text.
> As well as allegory, this tale contains at least one
> deliberate falsehood. (The temple of Isis was not destroyed during
> this era, a fact that Josephus was aware of).
This is neither here nor there, even if true, as are the following
points.
> Following it is a second (or third, perhaps) allegorical tale.
> Josephus plainly intended for them to go together. To quote Joe
> Atwill,
>
> [I]t should be noted that the two tales that follow the
> Testimonium are oddly tangential from the narration Josephus has
> been engaged in up unto it, which describes Pontius Pilates'
> military activity in Judea. They stand out both because of their
> location, Rome, as well as their lightweight, ribald substance.
Atwill is a crank!
> The second reference in 20 is almost certainly a later insertion.
It is generally considered authentic by almost everyone.
> Tacitus is almost certainly just reporting what Christians of the time
> told him.
Ask yourself 'How do we know this?' Speculation is too often used as
an excuse to ignore inconvenient testimony.
> Even if the records had survived the intervening fires in
> Rome, it's unlikely that he'd have troubled himself to dig them up for
> a minor point in his history. And in any case, Roman records of
> Jesus' execution would not have called Jesus "Christ".
This seems to be another example.
> All of this is expanded on at
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
> (Historicity Of Jesus)
No sensible person today doubts that a man called Jesus of Nazareth
was doing the rounds in 30AD. Those who make such an improbable case
betray their ulterior motive. It's hard to think of any ideological
movement NOT founded by a chap on a soapbox shouting, "I'm where it's
at."
> > >>Almost no
> > >>serious scholar in archaelogy believes that Jesus didn't exist at
> > >>all.
>
> Actually, _The Jesus Puzzle_ by Earl Doherty makes a very good case.
Doherty is not a scholar. His book is a piece of special pleading,
and not to be found in the scholarly literature as far as I know.
> There's a review at
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml
Richard Carrier may be a scholar -- he has certainly had the training
-- but writes as a propagandist.
> Other scholars have argued this, as well.
Not since anti-semitism became unfashionable. It was mostly argued by
Germans who had a state church in the late 19th century, and who
wanted to get rid of this Jew from it by making him a pagan invention
around 170.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Chris Zabel
news:3a88eeea.03072...@posting.google.com...
Lots of key points snipped for brevity...
> Not since anti-semitism became unfashionable. It was mostly argued by
> Germans who had a state church in the late 19th century, and who
> wanted to get rid of this Jew from it by making him a pagan invention
> around 170.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
Thanks for the support. I just didn't have the time to respond point by
point too much of the rebuttal, but I agree with what you say. People have
to realize that not everything published on the web is up to date and
scholarly. In fact much of what I've seen on the Net would be considered
fringe theories at best.
AE Jabbour
>
> Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up some
> very un-American attitudes. From Sports Illustrated:
[snipped]
Barney, what the hell are you talking about?
--
A.E. Jabbour
"Oh! I know this one: Slaying entails certain
sacrifices ... blah blah bitty blah, I'm so
stuffy, give me a scone."
Buffy, "Inca Mummy Girl"
Chris Zabel
country, but most likely the intensity of that affiliation. The Gallup
International Millennium Survey was a poll conducted on religious beliefs
and attitudes across the world very recently. Check out
http://www.gallup-international.com/survey15.htm for some results. While
those professing a religious denomination was relatively close in Western
Europe(88%) compared to North America(91%), those who attend religious
services regularly was not particularly close(47% in NA to only 20% in
Western Europe). Also, when asked the question "does God play an important
role in your life?", NA participants responded yes 83% while Western Europe
responded only 49% in the affirmative. Among industrialized nations the US
ranks very high in terms of personal religious beliefs, while France does
not. So with some confidence one can say that France is a much less
religious nation than the US, though a tad more religious than certain
industrialized Asian countries like Hong Kong.
Chris Zabel
> I don't think its quite as simple as some people are claiming. The
> stats indicate a different attitude towards God, but I don't know if
> one can qualify it as more or less religious.
>
> Americans: The French are less devout they never go to church.
> French: Americans are more hypocritical and superficial about religion
>
> Isn't religion fun?
I see what you're saying of course, but there were some small indicators
that in general the French are not as religious on the whole as Americans.
Atheism and agnosticism was found to be much more common in Western Europe
than in the US by a sizeable margin(unless you want to get into the argument
of whether atheism is a religion in itself). It's part of the reason I
believe why France and the US have had complicated relations in the past.
Tom Breton
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3a88eeea.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
> Lots of key points snipped for brevity...
>
> > Not since anti-semitism became unfashionable. It was mostly argued by
> > Germans who had a state church in the late 19th century, and who
> > wanted to get rid of this Jew from it by making him a pagan invention
> > around 170.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Roger Pearse
>
>
> Thanks for the support.
I regret that you see it that way. IMO you are giving him and his ad
hominems far too much credit, and the evidence too little credit.
Tom Breton
> Tom Breton <te...@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message news:<m3y8ykp...@panix.com>...
>
> > [attributions lost]
> > > >>The most important extra-biblical historical references to Jesus are by the
> > > >>Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.
> >
> > This is the sort of thing they teach in religion class. That's what
> > they did in my (Catholic) high school. But looking at it as an adult,
> > it is extremely flimsy evidence.
> >
> > Josephus makes two references in The War Of The Jews (WOTJ), in vols
> > 18 and 20.
> >
> > The reference in 18, the famed Testimonium Josephus, has probably been
> > edited later to make it appear stronger. Compare it with the passage
> > beginning in Luke 24:19 (as pointed out by Dr. G. J. Goldberg), almost
> > certainly copied from Josephus (Josephus wrote WOTJ earlier, about 78
> > CE). (For more on this, see Luke and Josephus,
> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html)
> >
> > Ask yourself why the Luke author would copy most of it but leave out
> > "He was the Christ" and "If it be lawful to call him a man". The
> > likely answer: Because that text didn't exist at the time.
>
> The authenticity or otherwise of the TF is a matter of dispute among
> scholars. Almost universally regarded as an interpolation a century
> ago, the tide of opinion has moved the other way over the last
> century, or so I gather, with most scholars now considering it genuine
> but corrupt.
Ie, what I said. Though for some reason you try to make it sound
like a correction.
> A paper on how views have changed was read to the SBL
> conference by Dr. Alice Whealey a few years back, and is online at the
> academic Josephus site, josephus.yorku.ca. A lengthy review was
> published in the JTS 52.2 by Dr. J. Carleton Paget, which reviewed
> every conceivable point of view.
You ignore the links given, which sum up the evidence perfectly well.
A history of how views have changed doesn't seem to offer anything of
value. A review of "every conceivable point of view" seems like it
must give entirely too much weight to essentially religious views.
This is a notorious problem when looking at any of this history.
In any case, the links and evidence I already gave was sufficient.
> This idea about Luke, by the way, is strictly a fringe idea. No-one
> believes it outside of those with an agenda to peddle.
You offer no support, and ignore the support given. You use ad
hominems in place of argument or evidence. Furthermore, the easily
compared parallels between the two passages demonstrate the copying
beyond your ability to impugn it by argument from authority.
I suggest you at least trouble yourself to look at Dr. Goldberg's
evidence. For your convenience, actually because you tried to pull a
fast one by arguing from authority and by ad hominem, I am appending
the texts to this message. Anyone can compare them and see the strong
parallel.
Note that Goldberg was not looking at Luke specifically when he found
this parallel, but was surveying a large corpus of ancient Greek and
Latin literature for similarities to the Testimonium. Thus ISTM he
had no preconception about this parallel, much less an agenda to
peddle, contrary to your ad hominem.
> > Also note that Origen (died 254) heatedly attacks Josephus for denying
> > the divinity of Jesus,
>
> No. He simply mentions that Josephus was not a believer.
In any case, Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus
as the Christ." That is sufficient to prove the passage was altered,
which demonstrates that whatever Josephus really wrote (a) is not
accurately preserved, and (b) can fairly be presumed to be less useful
from a Christian point of view.
Also, in the whole Origen Contra Celsum, where he quotes Joesphus
liberally, he never bothers using the Testimonium. If the Testimonium
then were as it is now, this would be a bizarre omission.
ObBuffy: What VampWillow said
[Luke and the Testimonium, in English and Greek. Translations due to
Dr. Goldberg, I believe. Apologies for the formatting, it's been
through MS Word, then ASCII'ed. I'm omitting a rather lengthy
analysis pointing out the thematic similarities also. I trust
that lurkers' common sense will give some sense of the parallel
meaning anyways]
Testimonium Luke
Jesus wise man Jesus the Nazarene who was a man prophet
Iesous sophos aner Iesou tou Nazoraiou hos egeneto aner profetes
Testimonium Luke
if a man one can call him indeed (no match)
eige andra auton legein cre
Testimonium Luke
for he was of amazing deeds a worker mighty in deed
en gar paradoxon ergon poietes dunatos en ergoi
Testimonium Luke
a teacher and word
didaskalos kai logoi
Testimonium Luke
of people who with pleasure the truth received before God
anthropon ton hedone taleth decomenon, enantion tou Theou
Testimonium
and many of the Jews and many of the and all the people
Greeks were won over kai pantos tou laou
Luke
kai pollous men 'Ioudaious, pollous de
kai tou Hellenikou epegageto.
Testimonium Luke
The christ [or messiah] he was. (no match)
ho christos houtos en.
Testimonium Luke
and him an indictment how they handed him over
kai auton endeixei hopos te paredokan auton
Testimonium Luke
by the principal men the chief priests and leaders
ton proton andron hoi archiereis kai hoi archontes
Testimonium Luke
among us of us
par' hemin hemon
Testimonium Luke
to a cross condemned by Pilate to a judgment of death and crucified him.
stauroi epitetimhkotos Pilatoueis stauroi eis krima thanatou kai estaurosan auton.
Luke
But we were hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel
hemeis de helpizomen hoti autos estin o mellon lutrousthai ton Israel
Testimonium
did not stop the first followers
ouk epausanto hoi to proton agapesantes.
Testimonium Luke
(no match) but besides with all these things
alla ge syn pasin toutois
Testimonium Luke
For appearing to them (no match)
ephane gar autois
Testimonium Luke
a third day having this third day spending
triten echon hemeran triten tauten hemeran agei
[End]
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3a88eeea.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
> Lots of key points snipped for brevity...
Thank heavens for that! Too many posters think they can bore their
way to victory.
> > Not since anti-semitism became unfashionable. It was mostly argued by
> > Germans who had a state church in the late 19th century, and who
> > wanted to get rid of this Jew from it by making him a pagan invention
> > around 170.
>
> Thanks for the support. I just didn't have the time to respond point by
> point too much of the rebuttal, but I agree with what you say.
You're very kind.
> People have
> to realize that not everything published on the web is up to date and
> scholarly. In fact much of what I've seen on the Net would be considered
> fringe theories at best.
That is so. The best remedy, I think, is to learn to think for
ourselves, know why we think is right (or only approximate), and learn
how to evaluate. Base ourselves on evidence, avoid long
logic-choppings and appeals to authority. (Although medieval appeals
to authority based on a life of personal holiness and proven ability
to work miracles will be considered! -- that should exclude every
modern academic at once, I'd have thought, except perhaps some of
those responsible for fund-raising...).
Isn't it interesting that all of us leave school without any mental
tools to evaluate logic and reason? Why, one wonders.
John Briggs
> Alicat wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:36:47 -0400, st <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2003 18:48:07 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
>>>
>>>> ST wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For instance, I can, and with some confidence, state that there is no
>>>>> solid evidence that Jesus even existed. >He's a fable.
>>>>
>>>> Nonreligious historians contend that he did exist.
>>>
>>> Some do, and its certainly possible, but most will tell you there is
>>> nothing solid to say he did.
>>>
>>> Its just as possible there was someone named Ulysses, someone named
>>> Arthur, who was a king, and a thief who lived in sherwood forest.
>>>
>>> None of which makes the stories told about them anything more than
>>> myth, legend, or as I said fable.
>>>
>>> Most of what is in the bible is at best, hearsay, at worst, blatant
>>> propaganda.
>>>
>>> Doesn't mean all of it is a LIE, but we don't *know* any more about
>>> Jesus than about the Greek gods.
>>>
>>> I'm not dismissing Jesus, I'm saying if one dismisses other gods one
>>> really has nothing more solid to stand on with Jesus.
>>>
>>> st
>>
>> No, you are wrong. (Feel "disrespected" yet?)
>> There is at least one, if not more, specific mention of Jesus bar
>> Joseph, the Nazarene preacher, in Imperial Roman letters that are
>> actual historical documents.
>
> There is actual solid proof that someone called Artur or Arturus
> because items have been dug up in Britain with that name on them, dating
> to about the right post-Roman period, and connected with defence against
> the Saxon invaders.
Not so. There is evidence of the *name* Artur, but Celticists see Artur as
a mythical figure (like Finn or Fionn). Artur *may* derive from the name
Artorius, which is found in the 2nd century AD in Britain.
See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm#explanation
--
John Briggs
Don Sample
<stri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:24:22 -0700, Alicat <isal...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> >Uh huh. And where did all this come from? Can you explain why humans,
> >among all animals, have this self-awareness?
>
> Can you prove that whales and dophins are not?
Or chimpanzees gorillas or cats?
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Don Sample
<aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Barney <schlitz...@aol.comekingdom> wrote:
> >
> > Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up
> > some
> > very un-American attitudes. From Sports Illustrated:
>
> [snipped]
>
> Barney, what the hell are you talking about?
I believe that this started out as an attempt to satirize all the "ABC
is an XYZ" type threads. Very few people seem to have noticed that.
Aethelrede
Alicat wrote in message ...
>ridiculous, one simply puts up a website with all sorts of "evidence"
>to support a particular crank theory, and all the sudden you have a
>new expert, who can be cited in scholarly dissertations and even on
>usenet to support the dissemination of said theory.
>
>One of the senior administrative types at U.C. Berkeley (I think she
>is either dean of the faculty or someone who is heading up curricula
>decisions in some way) said a couple of weeks ago that seeking to know
>"the truth" in many academic disciplines is now "simply ludicrous"
>(her words, not mine). This philosophy is being used as a rational to
>remove the constraints on political speech within the classroom at
>U.C. Berkeley, a policy which was adopted in the 1930s to avoid
>indoctrination of the students by faculty members. I guess Pilate (did
>he exist? are we sure? :) was right.
Whatever the reason, it would be nice to see true freedom of speech
return to the average American college campus after decades of rigidly
enforced political correctness and repression of anyone wanting to express a
contrary opinion.
If you don't think students have been indoctrinated in classrooms since
the 80s up to the present day you must have been at an extremely unusual
university, or must be somewhat advanced in years.
Chris Zabel
historical reference to Jesus. Almost certainly the passage was altered at
some later point by Christians but I think it's hard to argue that in its
original form(of which we don't have) by Josephus it referred to the
historical person of Jesus. I wouldn't agree with your characterization of
it as "flimsy evidence", unless you believe it to be 100% pure invention of
later Christians.
Chris Zabel
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:38:44 GMT, "Chris Zabel"
> <alep...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"st" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:odsaivs1cekbe8ki0...@4ax.com...
> >> I don't think its quite as simple as some people are claiming. The
> >> stats indicate a different attitude towards God, but I don't know if
> >> one can qualify it as more or less religious.
> >>
> >> Americans: The French are less devout they never go to church.
> >> French: Americans are more hypocritical and superficial about religion
> >>
> >> Isn't religion fun?
> >
> >I see what you're saying of course, but there were some small indicators
> >that in general the French are not as religious on the whole as
Americans.
>
>
> Mexico probably has a huge influence on the NA stats and 'East'
> Germany probably has a huge influence on the WE stats.
>
> Also making claims about America when one considers the influence the
> American 'bible belt' would have on overall figures is dubious at
> best. Most people, even if inclined to do so, would probably not want
> to rock the boat and would therefore be more likely to answer as they
> think they should. I have travelled in the US and some people are
> shocked and claim to have never met an atheist. I bet they would also
> claim to have never met a gay person either. Its at those times, I
> wish I was gay, just for shock value.
>
> If you look at my Iran statistics, it would be silly to think there
> are no atheists there, and yet they are not counted. Who would be fool
> enough to admit that in Iran? The US is certainly not in the same
> league, but skewed stats would not really surprise me either.
>
> On the other side of things. With the influence of communism on
> Western Europe, the notion that 'devout belief' is backward and
> irrational probably has the opposite influence on those who might
> identify as religious.
>
> Regardless, to take a continental average and claim it represents one
> country within that continent is simply an abuse of statistics.
>
> >Atheism and agnosticism was found to be much more common in Western
Europe
> >than in the US by a sizeable margin
>
I didn't link to it but the poll had results broken down by country also.
This study was widely reported in the general media when the results came
out. The numbers for the big countries came out very close for the numbers
for the regional breakdowns(which makes sense:the US comprises most of NA).
You don't need to invent conspiracies about the American "bible belt" to
explain the numbers away. They are what they are. The US population is
more religious than France at the current moment.
Chris Zabel
> "Chris Zabel" <alep...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3a88eeea.03072...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Lots of key points snipped for brevity...
> >
> > > Not since anti-semitism became unfashionable. It was mostly argued by
> > > Germans who had a state church in the late 19th century, and who
> > > wanted to get rid of this Jew from it by making him a pagan invention
> > > around 170.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Roger Pearse
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the support.
>
> I regret that you see it that way. IMO you are giving him and his ad
> hominems far too much credit, and the evidence too little credit.
Well, some of his stuff may have been over the top I grant you, particularly
the ad hominem attacks, but I agree with the essence of his comments. I
think it's very easy for people to let biases creep in on both sides of this
issue.
Tomi Lindberg
> Uh huh. And where did all this come from? Can you explain why humans, among all
> animals, have this self-awareness?
Why? You mean there should be some reason why we as a species have evolved to a state
that significantly differs from other animals on earth? It's just evolution and we're
currently on the lead.
> I think your argument that free will comes from self-awareness is lame at best.
Even as a lame argument it's far more convincing than your lack of arguments
considering the question of free will.
> Everything you said about humans having both instincts and self awareness still
> doesn't lead to free will
Maybe I wrote unclearly or you just missed the point. I think you should try to read
again.
> - there is no reason we couldn't have those characteristics and still be as the
> animals are - basically controlled by our instincts (even if we were aware of
> them).
And you think that having free will somehow totally releases us from our instincts?
Free will gives us the ability evaluate our instincts but it doesn't change the fact
that our drives still come from those instincts - through understanding the causality
we just can make choices that don't fulfill our needs immediately if we believe them
giving even greater satisfaction later. Without instincts we'd be zombies with no
needs or drives.
> An anthropologist with more knowledge than I could probably make a good case that
> you have described the great apes rather than a human being.
At least my uneducated description did hit quite close then.
> as the preamble to our U.S. constitution states, we are endowed by our Creator with
> certain "unalienable rights", we aren't going to kill other humans for food or
> (more recently) enslave them as we do cattle.
Uh? How am I supposed to debate with U.S. constitution? If it says that god gave us
rights then it must be so.
> All our freedoms, and our wish for all other humans to be free, is predicated on
> this perceived difference.
Is it just me or does this really sound naïve?
> Unless, of course, you are a PETA person, in which case, all bets are off!
I'm not one of those either.
Barney
<stri...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>**** ATTN Alicat and St (Strike too) ****
>>
>>Are you guys aware that Google doesn't archive your messages? Just thought
>I'd
>>let you know that people who post through Google (quite a few do) can't read
>>your remarks on this thread. Your gospels aren't spreading as far as they
>>could be.
>
>Heh, I started using the No Archive header when I was younger and more
>paranoid. Something about privacy, sticking it to the man, whatever,
>something silly like that.
>
>Now, of course, its a bit different. I honestly enjoy the idea of my
>posts "disappearing" if no one sees fit to quote them. Helps motivate
>me to keep them interesting.
>
Well, I can see why someone wouldn't want his posts to become part of the
"permanent" record at Google. But if you're responding to a message by someone
who uses Google, you're just wasting your time. The person you most want to
read your response won't be able to. I was using Google this weekend because
AOL was acting up, and I missed all of your comments.
>Not that anything really 'disappears' on the internet, but it adds to
>my satisfaction when people actually do quote me, and it makes me
>laugh when they grossly misquote me.
>
Have people actually altered your quotes? That's evil.
Your pal,
Barney
The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that
all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my
time.
--- Bernard Shaw
Barney
<dsa...@synapse.net> writes:
>> Barney, what the hell are you talking about?
>
>I believe that this started out as an attempt to satirize all the "ABC
>is an XYZ" type threads. Very few people seem to have noticed that.
>
Let's face it Don, we're just too damn sophisticated for this rabble. Why
don't you and I form our own religion?
Barney
>Barney, what the hell are you talking about?
>
Ah, the eternal question.
The eternal answer: "Hell if I know!"
AE Jabbour
> In article <bg3nkk$koqu4$4...@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>, AE Jabbour
> <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Barney <schlitz...@aol.comekingdom> wrote:
>> >
>> > Lance Armstrong has been hanging out in France too long and has picked up
>> > some
>> > very un-American attitudes. From Sports Illustrated:
>>
>> [snipped]
>>
>> Barney, what the hell are you talking about?
>
> I believe that this started out as an attempt to satirize all the "ABC
> is an XYZ" type threads. Very few people seem to have noticed that.
Sheesh. I didn't get it either. Obviously, it was a little too
subtle for me. :)
Chris Zabel
news:20030729093001...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> In article <280720031954570962%dsa...@synapse.net>, Don Sample
> <dsa...@synapse.net> writes:
>
> >> Barney, what the hell are you talking about?
> >
> >I believe that this started out as an attempt to satirize all the "ABC
> >is an XYZ" type threads. Very few people seem to have noticed that.
> >
>
> Let's face it Don, we're just too damn sophisticated for this rabble. Why
> don't you and I form our own religion?
>
> Your pal,
> Barney
It is a great way to start a tax shelter. Just ask the Scientologists.
Barney
Zabel" <alep...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> >> Barney, what the hell are you talking about?
>> >
>> >I believe that this started out as an attempt to satirize all the "ABC
>> >is an XYZ" type threads. Very few people seem to have noticed that.
>> >
>>
>> Let's face it Don, we're just too damn sophisticated for this rabble. Why
>> don't you and I form our own religion?
>>
>> Your pal,
>> Barney
>
>It is a great way to start a tax shelter. Just ask the Scientologists.
>
Travolta's already sent me a nice big "donation."
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>
>>Are you guys aware that Google doesn't archive your messages? Just thought
>I'd
>>let you know that people who post through Google (quite a few do) can't read
>>your remarks on this thread. Your gospels aren't spreading as far as they
>>could be.
>>
>>Your pal,
>>Barney
>
>
>Oh, thanks, Barney! I think my husband (the software guy) has it set
>up like that so that in the far distant future when my son runs for
>some despicable political office, he won't be embarrassed by people
>citing some post where his mother kept advocating the use of illegal
>drugs....:)
>
I'm also sort of uneasy about the idea that all of my drunken and careless
remarks here are preserved in a gigantic database. But it's useful and
probably harmless, as long you as you keep yourself anonymous.
>I'll ask but I doubt I'll change it. After all, any pearls of wisdom
>that drop forth from this keyboard are bound to be misshapen and
>easily arguable :)
I think you should change it, simply because you're excluding Google users from
the discussion. I don't think anyone should be excluded from Usenet; it's a
great democratic forum. Besides, I bet you've responded to a Googler's post
before and probably wondered why he / she ignored your post. Now you know.
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>Statements like that make me wonder whether you and I belong to the same
>>species ! Demanding explanations for the world around us (aka
>consciousness)
>>is exactly what separates humans from the beasts. Our mania for discovery
>is one of the few things that homo sapiens *should* be proud of.
>
>Right - BUT homo sapiens also continuously demonstrate belief in
>things they have no proof for at all
Right - AND I believe that that's a flaw in human nature, not something to be
exalted into a "virture" called faith.
> - and I can't think of any other species that does so....
You'd have a hell of a time proving or disproving that.
>thus the idea that both characteristics (being
>self aware/conscious/demanding proof *and* having what you would call
>"blind faith") are fully human and paradoxical. Thus leading to (wait
>for it!) humility, which I consider the ability to laugh at oneself at
>the very least.
I think we're both searching for a method to accept human failings here, in
completely different ways. But you must admit that the Catholic church, or any
other organized religion, is not exactly noted for its self-deprecating humor
or for teaching its most devout parishioners how to laugh. Quite the opposite,
I'd say!
>>
>>>(I mean, my cat doesn't care anything about the
>>>law of gravity and would walk away in disdain if I tried to explain
>>>why the piece of chicken falling down to her mouth does so...),
>>
>>A pretty convincing illustration that cats are inferior to humans. Is it
>>really true, though? I gathered that cats were rather curious.
>
>They are curious, but not in the way you were describing (in terms of
>demanding explanations). They are more what I would call "aggressively
>investigative" but its always about either food and/or defending the
>territory.
>Somewhere here (I think its the same thread but I'm losing track) we
>have someone declaring that all animals have self awareness or none
>do, and that free will is as a result of self awareness and therefore,
>I guess cats have free will too, and we are all deluded if we think
>humans are unique in any way (at least that seems to be the
>conclusion). Therefore the concept of "human rights" is silly at
>best.
Well, FWIW I utterly reject the idea of "animal rights", probably because I
also reject the idea that animals have free will and consciousness. (I haven't
really thought about it in this way, though.) Humans *do* have free will,
although again that's one of the great mysteries that no one can explain. All
of our actions and beliefs are motivated by the belief that we do have free
will, and I just don't trust anyone who claims to reject the idea of free will.
It's a given about human nature.
>I guess getting my cats neutered was a crime against a creature of
>free will and self awareness and I can expect a visit from someone,
>sometime soon who will take me away to pay for my sins....:)
>So, do my cats *know* they are neutered? Or do they just chalk up the
>lack of sexual interest to their biorhythms? Or do they even ever
>think about this at all?
No, no, and no. Feel better now? Whenever you start to feel guilty about
mutilating an animal's genitals, think about how damn noisy they are when
they're, uh, amorous.
<snippage>
>>>Bah humbug, Barney. Give me one example of St. Paul distorting the
>>>teachings of Jesus.
>>
>>Where do I start? Original sin was Paul's hobby horse, not Jesus's. So
>were atonement, charity, celibacy, misogyny, and many other things that Paul
>drummed up to sell his version of Christianity to Gentiles. The synoptic
Jesus was
>>clearly a rabid communist, with anarchistic proclivities. He spoke against
>the >>rich, family ties and churches, and didn't say a word about universal
>>redemption. Like Plato, Paul was the most brilliant and fascinating
>disciple>>of an original thinker, but his writings don't necessarily reflect
the
>master's>>teachings.
>>
>Well, I would say that Paul, unlike Jesus, was following through with
>practical advice that the early Christians needed to "concretize"
>their belief system into a church. Now I totally agree with those who
>say that Jesus had no intention of setting up a church or having
>personal followers (He always pointed towards his Father as the one to
>be worshipped), and the earliest Christians were so convinced of an
>imminent Second Coming/Apocalypse that a communal/anarchist life was
>necessary, both in terms of protecting the group from persecution
>(from the Sanhedrin, this was way before the Romans got into the act)
>and keeping the "fervor" going. But you just can't sustain that sort
>of "all things in common" life outside a monastery, and as the early
>church became geographically more widespread and culturally more
>diverse and you had more and more families involved, St. Paul pretty
>much was the only one willing and able to organize things and dispense
>correction.
>
I agree with all that. That's the case for Paul as a committee man, doing
whatever was necessary to spread the Word and deal in practical terms with the
founding of a new religion. Bit was all that worth doing? Like Jesus, I
consider "organized religion" to be an oxymoron. Real spirituality, as I see
it, is a deeply personal and even private thing. The moment it's organized, it
becomes politics. And for the most part the Catholic church has been a highly
corrupt and compromised political institution, responsible for some of the
greatest crimes in history. It has had nothing to do with spirituality or
Christ's real teachings.
>I won't go into the theological/moral issues you raised above because
>its too hot. But I don't agree with everything and do agree with some
>things, but within the context of a particular religious system you do
>understand that there is a necessity for the followers to interpret
>the teachings of the original...thus it is in virtually all beliefs,
>no?
Of course, but there's a difference between interpretation and distortion. You
and I can argue about WTF "My kingdom is not of this world" means; that's
interpretation. But the concept of Original Sin has nothing whatever to do
with anything that Jesus ever said. It's a Pauline obsession, and attributing
it to Jesus is pure distortion.
> St. James certainly was even more effectual when he wrote his
>famous works/faith epistle, and created a passage of Scripture that
>continues to define Catholicism vs. Protestantism to this day....
>
Which passage is that? I must admit that like most cradle Catholics, I
consider the Bible itself Protestant propaganda :) The only people who read it
are fundies, prisoners who have "found" Jesus while serving their terms, old
ladies in Sicily, and zealous converts like yourself.
>I like Paul because he was a real asshole before the road to Damascus,
>and probably a real asshole after too - he had a hard time controlling
>his temper and his need to direct the lives of others - both of which
>are my failings too.
>
The interesting thing about Paul is that he was *always* obsessed with Jesus,
both in the years of his life in which he persecuted Christians, and after his
conversion. I think he was both fascinated and appalled by Jesus's apparent
indifference to death, which He demonstrated at his trial by refusing to defend
himself. Paul, like the rest of us, was terrified by death, and constructed a
whole faith to try to conquer this fear.
>><snippage>
>>
>>>I wasn't talking about false hope, but real hope - that which keeps
>>>people thinking that people are getting better as a species (I don't
>>>subscribe to that one, but you definitely see a lot of it in humanist
>>>circles, and that predominates in the academic world, anyway). Or the
>>>hope of finding one's true love or the hope of bringing children into
>>>the world (on purpose)....
>>>
>>
>>What on earth does any of that have to do with faith in a supernatural
>being?
>>You don't need to believe in obsolete fairy tales to believe in altruism and
>>love.
>
>But where does altruism and love come from? Can you point to some
>evolutionary necessity that would produce these
>whatever-you-want-to-call-them?
I believe in the reality of love, altruism, and all the other noble elements of
human nature, and no, I haven't a clue where they come from. But it does NOT
automatically follow that they're evidence of God's will. The religious love
to pounce on every mystery and their "explanation" is always "God does it."
Our ancestors didn't understand thunder and lightning, and attributed them to
angry gods. But they were wrong, just as you're wrong to attribute love and
freedom to God.
I personally believe that we know next to nothing about human nature, at the
level we understand, say, the structure of the atom. Human nature is still
terra incognita, and for the time being a great novelist's insight (another
mysterious but real human quality) into emotions is more valid than any
scientist's. But that doesn't mean novelists are endowed with special grace
from God.
>>
>>>And I certainly don't experience that I have the beliefs I do because
>>>they make me "feel good". Rather, they help me to "be good" even when
>>>I don't feel like it.
>>>
>>
>>How so? Give me an example of how belief in Jesus's divinity helps you
>behave ethically.
>
>Ah - okay. But you won't like it/get it.
>I believe that Jesus, who was truly God and truly man (simultaneously!
>yowzah!), and had all of God's "powers" at his command, nonetheless
>lived on earth as a human, subject to all pains and sorrows of our
>human existence, and then, although he was without sin, and therefore
>not subject to death, freed *me* from sin and death by his sacrificial
>death. Now if the story ended there, then anyone dying on behalf of
>another would be at the least in the same category as Jesus. However!
>The best part is that Jesus demonstrated the actual vanquishing of the
>power of death by rising again (yeah, I actually buy into this!) and
>then after rejoining his Father, took up residence in my soul upon my
>baptism and is now living within me (ooooh - creepy - I'm possessed!).
>
That's an excellent summary of what Catholics believe in *general*. I'm
already very familiar with these ideas, though. I was more interested in
hearing about a *specific* ethical dilemma which Jesus's divinity helped you to
face.
>So, as a person who was baptised as an adult (I was 20), I got to
>experience the difference before and after, and here are my
>experiential conclusions:
>If you are sure you will never die (well, your body will but the
>essential part - the "me" which isn't a biological confection),
Are you avoiding the word "soul" for some reason?
> you gain a freedom to act. If you are sure you are supremely loved, to the
>point where someone who did not have to die was still willing to die
>for *you*, you gain a security that comes from nothing else. If you
>are sure you will never be alone, because the living God is with you
>at all times, you gain a confidence to approach human relationships
>without the attachment that comes from trying to fend off loneliness.
>
>I have gained courage, and I think acting ethically often demands
>courage. I have "back up", as it were, and reason to act that comes
>from a source greater than I. I DEMAND reason and purpose.
Well, that's your problem. You believe these things because you *want* to
believe them, and *demand* to believe them, and because you find these beliefs
useful; you don't believe them because they happen to be true. Just accept the
fact that the universe is at bottom meaningless and aimless, and pitilessly
indifferent to your fate. Sure, it's kinda scary when you realize that
nobody's in control, and nobody gives a rat's ass whether you live or die, but
if you face up to these harsh facts, you'll have more intellectual
self-respect. That's much more exhilarating than "faith".
I'm sure you've heard this before, but this system of beliefs strikes me and
other atheists as a crutch for the childish and the weak who can't handle the
fear of death, or the difficulties involved with human relationships. You
invent fantasies such as "the soul" and "the afterlife" to surmount your terror
of oblivion, and invent an omnipresent personal God - the way a child creates
an imaginary friend - who never leaves your side, to escape your terror of
loneliness.
>>
>>>And what truth "shall set you free"? Doesn't the idea that there is
>>>nothing beyond this "mortal coil" simply trap you in a very limited
>>>realm of possibilities?
>>
>>Does the idea that I'm unable to flap my arms and fly to the moon "trap me
>in a
>>limited realm of possibilities"? Or does accepting that fact simply allow
>me
>>to have intellectual self-respect?
>>
>You have intellectual self respect because you accept that you can't
>fly to the moon?
I just meant that the idea of my flapping my arms and flying is just as
credible as God and the afterlife. By accepting the implausibility of these
ideas, I can respect myself for facing up to facts.
> Once again, I realize that concrete, scientific proof
>of things is a most important criteria for you...and I guess I am from
>the other planet, where I can welcome ideas that are seemingly
>impossible. Depending!
>
Real scientists also believe that nothing's theoretically impossible. But for
practical purposes they do concede that certain things aren't possible.
<more snippage>
>Gore Vidal is a bitter old fart.
I like him too. His essays are great but his fiction isn't convincing - with
one interesting exception that relates to our discussion here. I mean his
novel about Julian, the guy who tried to halt the spread of Christianity by
restoring the pagan religions to the Roman empire. Vidal manages for once to
put some real emotion into his story, probably because he sympathizes so much
with Julian's hatred of Christianity. Highly recommended.
lensman1955
> In article <20030722121800...@mb-m02.aol.com>, fyl...@aol.comspam
> (Rose) writes:
>
> >
> >I hate to be Buffy-fan-esque, but can you quote a source?
> >
>
> I can do better than that. I can quote noted atheist and Buffy fan Tom Breton
> (note French surname) quoting a source. Bush told reporters, "I don't know
> that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered
> patriots. This is one nation under God."
>
> Also check out a recent article in Vanity Fair by Christopher Hitchens about
> the scary fundamentalism of Bush and his cronies. John Ashcroft has said, "In
> America, we've had no king but Jesus." So much for separation of church and
> state.
Every day in every way I become more and more frightened by that man.
Having said that, his own personal opinions are his and he is free to
state them. If he ever tries to enact legislation that [acts] on these
beliefs, then I'll worry about the separation of church and state.
(But I'm pretty sure the man is going to be in the private sector
again in a short while.)
lensman1955
> On 22 Jul 2003 01:37:40 GMT, schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney)
> wrote:
>
> >"When I was a boy, I'd see people who talked about God at church and then went
> >home and beat their kids," Lance says. You wonder if he's talking about his
> >former stepfather, Terry Armstrong, a devout Christian who, Lance says, beat
> >him often.
>
> I see nothing wrong with Armstrong's feelings toward religion when he
> had to live through this hypocrisy. If there is anything in the world
> I hate it's hypocrites, especially where religious beliefs are
> concerned. Fortunately there literally is a special place in Hell for
> them. (grin at slight irony)
I'm trying to remember my "Inferno," where do the hypocrites go? I
remember the flatterers spit up shit and those who sold religious
favors wear golden robe that heat up if they stand still too long, but
where specifically are "hypocirtes" mentioned?
I tried to read Dante's Inferno once... couldn't manage it. I did read
the "lite" version "Inferno" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle and
enjoyed it a great deal. They even managed to come up with a
legitimate reason for Hell besides, "You've been bad, this is what you
get for eternity."
The Zany Rogue
The Zany Rogue
system/govt/society/group by the actions of ONE person is folly.
Aethelrede
lensman1955 wrote in message
<633b063b.03073...@posting.google.com>...
Not unless Bush is too. Ashcroft is Bush's mouthpiece and says nothing
that Bush isn't 100% behind. That's the scary part about Bush and his bunch
of bible-believing fundamentalists: they all read from the same book,
interpreted the same narrow way.
And they KNOW that everything they do and say is right, because they
have God on Their Side. It makes it easier to act unconstitutionally and
strip bad people of their rights because only good people should have
rights. It makes dealing out "justice" much easier when you can say someone
is guilty and thus doesn't deserve a trial.
Tom Breton
> schlitz...@aol.comekingdom (Barney) wrote in message news:<20030722222804...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
>
> > In article <20030722121800...@mb-m02.aol.com>, fyl...@aol.comspam
> > (Rose) writes:
> >
> > >
> > >I hate to be Buffy-fan-esque, but can you quote a source?
> > >
> >
> > I can do better than that. I can quote noted atheist and Buffy fan Tom Breton
> > (note French surname) quoting a source. Bush told reporters, "I don't know
> > that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered
> > patriots. This is one nation under God."
I must have missed this the first time.
I want to correct several impressions.
(a) I'm not very French. Half of my ancestors are French-Canadian
(The other half are Irish). My grandmother's family had been in
indentured servitude on Les Isles De La Magdalene in Canada from
sometime in the 1700's until 1898. My grandfather's family were
fishermen in Massachusetts. I do speak French conversationally, as
has come up once or twice on this ng.
(b) Even though I strongly condemn Bush Sr's remarks against atheists,
I'm not a liberal. Nor a conservative, either. Middle-of-the-road
doesn't want me either, but they're out of luck.
> > Also check out a recent article in Vanity Fair by Christopher Hitchens about
> > the scary fundamentalism of Bush and his cronies. John Ashcroft has said, "In
> > America, we've had no king but Jesus." So much for separation of church and
> > state.
Barney
<isal...@ev1.net> writes:
>>I think we're both searching for a method to accept human failings here, in
>>completely different ways. But you must admit that the Catholic church, or
>any>>other organized religion, is not exactly noted for its self-deprecating
>humor>>or for teaching its most devout parishioners how to laugh. Quite the
>opposite,>>I'd say!
>>
>You didn't have the right Irish priest in your Church, apparently!
>(Well, I know I have very limited experience, being a post Vatican II
>Catholic and only ever having one priest and he's a riot - very, very
>dry wit which he sneaks into the homilies and most of which flies
>right over the people in the pews.)
A congregation is what comedians call "a tough crowd." :)
Most of the priests and nuns I've known have been pretty gloomy, though they're
some of the most *distinct* personalities I've ever met. They're the last
remnants of the individualistic age. The only joyful one I encountered was my
2nd grade teacher who was an honest to God singing nun. She'd bring her guitar
to class and sing French songs, just like Maria von Trapp!
Because I rejected Catholicism and often bash it, people assume that a priest
must have sodomized me or I was otherwise traumatized at one point. But that's
not true at all, I have very fond memories of most of the priests and nuns I
knew. I don't "hate" Jesus either; on the contrary He was a fascinating guy
who said some very interesting things, and I like Him. I just don't believe in
His divinity.
>I will cite the fact that virtually every Tibetan Buddhist (I have
>lots of monk friends and spent time in a Buddhist monastery in
>northern India) I've met, especially the high lamas, are very joyful
>and funny people. Even though Tibetan Buddhism is extremely serious in
>practice, the people seem to spend a lot of time laughing.
I don't know beans about Buddhism but compared to Christians Buddhists do seem
very light-hearted and easygoing. I believe Napoleon considered it to be the
most civilized religion, and planned to eventually replace Christianity with
Buddhism when he conquered Europe. (Things didn't work out that way, though.)
>I always assumed Jesus was far more joyful than he is portrayed...
He must have been, or he would never have had a following. You need to open
with a few jokes or the crowds aren't going to hang around. Wasn't there a
huge debate going around in the Middle Ages about whether Christ ever laughed?
<snippage of animal free will and Paul stuff>
>Real spirituality *is* a deeply personal and private thing - and I was
>taught, as part of my indoctrination into Catholicism, that ultimately
>its between you and God (no one else, including the priest, being
>*directly* involved). However (and this is a big however), the problem
>with making it entirely private is that (a) humans have a tendency to
>do whatever best suits their own egos, and if you make up a religion
>that has no authoritative source or tradition,
Doesn't that describe Christianity at the beginning? Or do you mean its
authoritative tradition was Judaism?
> you tend to get one
>that just feeds into whatever rationalizations you need to do whatever
>you want, therefore making the whole thing pretty much useless
I agree of course, though to me even established religions are mainly
rationalizations for certain fears, such as fear of death and fear of sex (i.e.
women).
> (see: modern paganism, particularly the whole current wicca rage. The more
>lukewarm Protestants - Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. - also fit into
>this category nowadays, which is one of the reason they are
>increasingly dying out.)
To be fair, Catholicism is certainly waning, too. You can't say that the
church has been very flexible. (If by "lukewarm" you meant the Protestant
churches have been caving in to secular fashions.)
> and (b) we are called in virtually every
>religion to relate to our fellow humans in a "community of believers"
>- so no religion is entirely vertical (me ---> God), but also
>horizonal in nature (me < --- > "brothers and sisters in the faith").
>That community generally has to be organized in some way (even if its
>just a question of collecting food for the poor, for example), and
>yes, it always gets political.
Unfortunately, any time more than 2 people get together, politics intrudes.
Which means that religion is doomed from the start. Its whole point is to
avoid politics - temporal power - and offer alternative, spiritual values.
Once a church starts playing political games - as it must - its purpose has
been fatally compromised.
>
>The Church is certainly not the Kingdom of Heaven, but it can point to
>it, and I believe that it has, consistently, by raising up great
>examples (saints), despite its earthly corruption. And by preserving
>the teachings of the saints.
Well, that's a very tactful way of saying that it's not doing good works, just
preaching about them. The great saints, IIRC, were all mostly reviled by the
church during their lifetimes, so it's questionable whether you can give the
Church much credit for "raising" and promoting these individuals.
>So I don't agree that it has nothing to
>do with real spirituality. In preserving the Mass, which Jesus
>specifically instructed us to celebrate in memory of His saving grace,
Isn't that very controversial, though? Paul *claimed* that Jesus went on about
His saving grace, but no other apostle reports Jesus describing the Mass
ritual. The idea of a devout Jew like Jesus drinking wine on Passover strikes
some religionists as totally incredible, and they think Paul was either lying
or hallucinating.
>we have a continuous reminder of who we are and what we are supposed
>to be doing.
>
Again, though, actions speak louder than words, and the Church has to set an
example by its good works rather than just reminding us to be good. From the
Inquisition to the Crusades to its cover-ups of priestly pederasty, it hasn't,
to put it mildly, been a good role model.
>>> St. James certainly was even more effectual when he wrote his
>>>famous works/faith epistle, and created a passage of Scripture that
>>>continues to define Catholicism vs. Protestantism to this day....
>>>
>>
>>Which passage is that? I must admit that like most cradle Catholics, I
>>consider the Bible itself Protestant propaganda :) The only people who read
>it>>are fundies, prisoners who have "found" Jesus while serving their terms,
old
>>ladies in Sicily, and zealous converts like yourself.
>
>Tee hee. Read The Letter of James (there is only one - it won't kill
>you!), especially Chapter 2, Verse 14. I quote:
>"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has
>not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad
>and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace,
>be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed in the
>body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is
>dead."
>
Okay, even I've heard that passage before. :)
>Now as you probably know, the "justification by faith" (and faith
>alone) is the cornerstone of Protestant theology. So this has been a
>rather controversial passage since the Reformation. My priest puts it
>this way: "You are the hands, and the mind, and the feet, and the
>voice of God to your brothers and sisters." In other words, it is not
>simply a matter of believing but doing. Jesus said: "It not those who
>say Lord, Lord, but those who do my Father's will that shall enter the
>kingdom of Heaven."
I couldn't agree more with that. Talk is cheap. What good does belief do
alone?
>>
>>>I like Paul because he was a real asshole before the road to Damascus,
>>>and probably a real asshole after too - he had a hard time controlling
>>>his temper and his need to direct the lives of others - both of which
>>>are my failings too.
>>>
>>
>>The interesting thing about Paul is that he was *always* obsessed with
>Jesus,
>>both in the years of his life in which he persecuted Christians, and after
>his
>>conversion. I think he was both fascinated and appalled by Jesus's apparent
>>indifference to death, which He demonstrated at his trial by refusing to
>defend
>>himself. Paul, like the rest of us, was terrified by death, and constructed
>a
>>whole faith to try to conquer this fear.
>>
>Spinoza said something to the effect that without the fear of death
>humans would accomplish nothing.
>
I probably agree with that. I'm not saying it's wrong to be scared of death,
but it's a fear we have to learn how to deal with on our own without using the
crutch of religion. And of course death is what makes life meaningful and
precious. Thus having an immortal soul diminishes the importance of life.
<snippage>
> But that doesn't mean novelists are endowed with special grace
>>from God.
>
>Not all of them, but some of them! No one who has won the Booker Prize
>lately, anyway :)
Anyone involved with those literary awards is clearly a tool of Satan.
>>>So, as a person who was baptised as an adult (I was 20), I got to
>>>experience the difference before and after, and here are my
>>>experiential conclusions:
>>>If you are sure you will never die (well, your body will but the
>>>essential part - the "me" which isn't a biological confection),
>>
>>Are you avoiding the word "soul" for some reason?
>
>Well here in the Buffyverse that word gets tossed around a lot, so I
>was avoiding it. ME seem to use it as a synonym for "conscience",
>which is not the same definition as Christianity, for example.
Exactly. The good folks at ME never had the slightest idea of how they wanted
to define "soul", so Angel having one and Spike getting one seemed to be pretty
meaningless to me. (Did you notice any real difference between Spikey pre-soul
and post-soul? Except the fact that the S7 Spike was badly written?) There
used to be a French girl posting here who demonstrated how ridiculous it was to
equate a soul with a conscience.
BTW, I think that's the first reference to the TV show I've read here in about
5 months. :)
> I generally prefer the eastern approach - the soul is the divine and
>immutable essence (or atman) that exists in the individual during
>one's earthly lifetime, and then rejoins the universal divine essence
>(brahman) when the body returns to dust. In Christian terms the soul
>(like God) is personalized more and attached to individual personality
>- which of course reflects one of humanity basic fears about death -
>that *I* cease to be (more ego talk, of course). I (personally) think
>this is another thing I'll find out more about after I die, and
>probably not so much before.
>
When I talk about my "soul" (and I do, though I don't really believe in it) I'm
definitely referring to the Christian conception of it - the foundations of my
personality. There's a fine line between "ego talk" and "individuality."
>>I'm sure you've heard this before, but this system of beliefs strikes me and
>>other atheists as a crutch for the childish and the weak who can't handle
>the
>>fear of death, or the difficulties involved with human relationships. You
>>invent fantasies such as "the soul" and "the afterlife" to surmount your
>terror
>>of oblivion, and invent an omnipresent personal God - the way a child
>creates
>>an imaginary friend - who never leaves your side, to escape your terror of
>>loneliness.
>
>You have just turned into my father!
That's probably better than turning into my father. (Just joking, Dad.)
>(I kid you not - if he was as
>literate and expressive as you are, he would have written the
>paragraph above).
So I guess you *have* heard that spiel before.
> My parents are devout atheists who think religion is
>a "crutch for the childish and weak" etc. etc.
BTW, I didn't mean to phrase it quite that way, which sounds like a personal
attack on you. Obviously you're not childish and weak, you're clearly more
mature than I am and you could probably kick my ass too. :)
> From the earliest time
>I can remember I rejected this and by the time I was 8 or 9 I was
>seeking out a faith that was consonant with my experience of God.
You must have picked up the idea of God somewhere, though. Were *any* of your
relatives religious?
> I spent a little time (at age 14-15, I think, after doing a form of
>Japanese Buddhism very ardently for a couple of years) trying out
>atheism - that is, trying to accept that it is all harsh and
>meaningless and that religion is the byproduct of terror...
>and thus the spirituality I practiced for the rest of my teen years
>was very non-deistic...
What does that mean? You tried to do good works without praying to anyone?
That pretty much describes my "religion", and it works for me.
>But, I think you have to have integrity, over all things possibly, and
>my experience kept leading me back to a personal God (with matching
>ribbons)...
>My parents, of course, treat me like the family "kook", but they never
>stopped me from doing all this.
Wow, I'm not sure how I'd react if one of my kids started "getting religion."
That would really be a test of my character. Would I ground the kid, and take
away his Bible? Or would I let him pursue a faith? A real dilemma. What
would you do if your son told you he rejects religion? Would you punish him?
>>>Gore Vidal is a bitter old fart.
>>
>>I like him too. His essays are great but his fiction isn't convincing -
>with
>>one interesting exception that relates to our discussion here. I mean his
>>novel about Julian, the guy who tried to halt the spread of Christianity by
>>restoring the pagan religions to the Roman empire. Vidal manages for once
>to>>put some real emotion into his story, probably because he sympathizes so
>much>>with Julian's hatred of Christianity. Highly recommended.
>
>Is there lots of homoeroticism?
Surprisingly little, considering the author and the subject matter. Those
Romans knew how to party.
> Otherwise, it would go towards the
>bottom of the pile as I have *so many* books to read. I am so grateful
>for all the books I have to read, don't get me wrong, but the stacks
>threaten to fill my physical universe, and there needs to be room for
>cat food.
>
Heh heh, I hear you. Speaking of which, I went to the library the other day
and got a Bill Bryson book (about Australia) and I'm about half-way through
Iyer's "Cuba and the Night" and loving it. Thanks for the recs!