New book: Lenny tells of teaching ignorant VPO that Jesus was Jewish — 'Was meinen Sie, Meister? War der Christe Jüdische?'

[Oscar]

After Bernstein's death Rolling Stone magazine published a long, but excerpted, sit-down interview over dinner with Lenny, America's greatest cultural ambassador of the last half of the 20th century. Ends up it was an extensive, no subject off-limits 12-hour interview, the last one he gave, apparently. I have always known there was more than what was offered in the Rolling Stone profile —  I'm surprised it took 22 years for the full-length.

Alas, last month Oxford University Press published a 186 pp. book by Jonathan Cott http://tiny.cc/dsonpw with index and photos. Strict interview format, it reads quickly, sometimes gossipy, candidly and with charm, but always honestly as if two friends chatting away late into the night. Indeed, the surroundings were ideal for such an in-depth project. Cott traveled to Bernstein's New England country home in Fairfield, Conn., arriving on Monday, November 20, 1989. According to Cott, Bernstein told him up-front that 'every subject under the sun' was up for discussion.

I have enjoyed this quick read so much I thought I'd personally transcribe a long excerpt for RMCR, re Bernstein talking about VPO players not knowing that Jesus was Jewish. Merry Christmas!

From Jonathan Cott's new book, Dinner with Lenny: The Long Last Interview with Leonard Bernstein [Oxford University Press : 2013], pp. 64-66.

<< You know, in 1988 I took the orchestra to Israel — think of it: the Vienna Philharmonic — and one of the works we played in Jerusalem was, in fact, Mahler's Sixth. _That_ was an experience! Imagine...this all-Catholic orchestra whose players, before I conducted them, didn't know what a Jew was — musicians growing up in the birthplace of Freud, Schönberg, Wittgenstein, Karl Kraus...not to mention Mahler — a Vienna that had become a city with almost no Jews that was at one time the Jewish center of the world!

Once, when the players were rehearsing my Kaddish Symphony for the first time, they stopped the rehearsal of their own accord to ask me what the word kaddish meant, and why they were so moved by the piece, and if I could tell them something about it. And I said that we had to finish up at six o'clock because they were also gong to be playing at the opera that night, and they had to get across town to the Wiener Staatsoper, grab a goulash and a cup of coffee on the way, and be ready for the downbeat at seven. I pointed this out to them and said that we hadn't read halfway through the symphony yet. And they said, Wir bleiben...we'll stay. I polled the whole orchestra and asked them, 'How many of you have to play the opera tonight?' Twenty or so hands went up. 'What's the opera?' Ariadne. Now, Richard Strauss's opera Ariadne auf Naxos is no easy job. But Wir bleiben, Wir bleiben, they insisted. 'Just tell us what kaddish means.'

So I said that it was related to the word sanctus, that what they said in church every week — sanctus, sanctus, sanctus — is the same word as kadosh, kadosh, kadosh. And they were turning white...and then one of the musicians stood up and said, Was meinen Sie, Meister? War der Christe Jüdische? 'Are you telling us that Jesus was Jewish?' Like innocent babies! I couldn't believe it. And I got so angry at them and said, 'How can you ask me these questions? You've grown up in this city that was the Judendzentrum of the world, and you killed them all, or drove them out.'

So this went on after other rehearsals, and sometimes even after performances they would grab meand take me for a drink at a bar and continue the conversation. And finally one of the clarinet players explained: 'We were brought up from the age of two years old not to ask questions because we would get no answers. So we didn't ask. We picked up a couple of things from magazines and television here and there, but we could never ask.'

They didn't know that Jesus was Jewish or that Jesus spoke a language called Aramaic or that in his time he was referred to as Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef or that benedictus mean Baruch Haba B'Shem Adonai or that there was a connection between the Old and New Testaments. They were all churchgoing kids, well brought up in the traditions of their Nazi grandfathers. And yet I think of them as my dear children and brothers. People sometimes ask me how I can go to Vienna — Kurt Waldheim is the president of Austria! — and conduct the Vienna Philharmonic. Simply, it's because I love the way they love music. And love does a _lot_ of things. >>

[Herman]

Le vendredi 21 décembre 2012 08:43:35 UTC+1, Oscar a écrit :
> After Bernstein's death Rolling Stone magazine published a long, but excerpted, sit-down interview over dinner with Lenny, America's greatest cultural ambassador of the last half of the 20th century.

Ah, there's the myth again of Bernstein liberating Europe from anti-semitism 25 years after the event.

The downside of these big, pseudo-intimate interviews is you have to accept every piece of bullshit you're getting, otherwise the interview stops being big and intimate.

Nonetheless I can imagine it's a great read. I just wouldn't take it as gospel.

[Oscar]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 2:15:15 AM, Herman wrote:
>
> Ah, there's the myth again of Bernstein liberating Europe from
> anti-semitism 25 years after the event.
>
> The downside of these big, pseudo-intimate interviews is you have
> to accept every piece of bullshit you're getting, otherwise the interview
> stops being big and intimate.
>
> Nonetheless I can imagine it's a great read. I just wouldn't take it as
> gospel.

Based on your quick criticism of a small excerpt, I suppose you've read Cott's other books, Conversations with Glenn Gould and Stockhausen: Conversations with the Composer, and arrived at similar conclusions: 'pseudo intimate', etc. What did you find objectionable about those books? Cott has been a contributing editor at Rolling Stone magazine and has written for New York Times and New Yorker as well. He lives in New York.

[Dufus]

>On Dec 21, 2:27 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:

I dont think Herman was criticizing Cott.

" I think a lot of Bernstein - but not as much as he does. "

Oscar Levant

[John Wiser]

"Dufus" <steve...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1884fd3b-c6d8-4abc...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Bernstein surely had
a large fund of self-regard
but face it, he also had the goods.

jdw

[Mark S]

Bernstein would have gotten the same reaction from many American
Catholics, especially pre-Vatican II. Catholics are schooled in the
dogma and sacraments of their religion, not the Bible. I'm sure many
would be shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew and not a Catholic.

They don't even get their own self-invented dogma right - most
Catholics I know think the words "immaculate conception" refer to Mary
giving birth to Jesus.

[Bob Harper]

On 12/21/12 7:34 AM, Mark S wrote:
> On Dec 21, 12:15 am, Herman<her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le vendredi 21 décembre 2012 08:43:35 UTC+1, Oscar a écrit :
>>
>>> After Bernstein's death Rolling Stone magazine published a long, but excerpted, sit-down interview over dinner with Lenny, America's greatest cultural ambassador of the last half of the 20th century.
>>
>> Ah, there's the myth again of Bernstein liberating Europe from anti-semitism 25 years after the event.
>>
>> The downside of these big, pseudo-intimate interviews is you have to accept every piece of bullshit you're getting, otherwise the interview stops being big and intimate.
>>
>> Nonetheless I can imagine it's a great read. I just wouldn't take it as gospel.
>
>
> Bernstein would have gotten the same reaction from many American
> Catholics, especially pre-Vatican II. Catholics are schooled in the
> dogma and sacraments of their religion, not the Bible. I'm sure many
> would be shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew and not a Catholic.

Nonsense. No properly catechized Catholic, pre- or post- Vatican II,
would say that.

>
> They don't even get their own self-invented dogma right - most
> Catholics I know think the words "immaculate conception" refer to Mary
> giving birth to Jesus.

I'll skip the 'self-invented' crack, so typical of you in your
bitterness, and say that unfortunately you are correct, at least these
days. Another consequence of poor catechesis. It's improving, though.

Bob Harper

[Kip Williams]

Bob Harper wrote, On 12/21/12 10:50 AM:

> I'll skip the 'self-invented' crack, so typical of you in your
> bitterness, and

...

You seem unclear on the concept of "skipping" something. What it means
is you don't bring up the thing you're skipping and characterize it and
the person who said it.

You're welcome.


Kip W

[O]

In article
<7cbb4549-eaa8-4a3f...@pd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 21, 12:15 am, Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Le vendredi 21 décembre 2012 08:43:35 UTC+1, Oscar a écrit :
> >
> > > After Bernstein's death Rolling Stone magazine published a long, but
> > > excerpted, sit-down interview over dinner with Lenny, America's greatest
> > > cultural ambassador of the last half of the 20th century.
> >
> > Ah, there's the myth again of Bernstein liberating Europe from
> > anti-semitism 25 years after the event.
> >
> > The downside of these big, pseudo-intimate interviews is you have to accept
> > every piece of bullshit you're getting, otherwise the interview stops being
> > big and intimate.
> >
> > Nonetheless I can imagine it's a great read. I just wouldn't take it as
> > gospel.
>
>
> Bernstein would have gotten the same reaction from many American
> Catholics, especially pre-Vatican II. Catholics are schooled in the
> dogma and sacraments of their religion, not the Bible. I'm sure many
> would be shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew and not a Catholic.

You are 100% wrong here, at least in my Catholic experience. My
parochial schooling by Nuns began pre-Vatican II. I was not taught in
any way that Jews were bad, or Christ-killers, or any other nonsense.
In addition, we were schooled in both the dogma, and the Bible. The
only times that Jews were referenced was when the Bible was referenced:
"Jesus Christ, King of the Jews," for example. I heard absolutely zero
anti-semitism in Catholic school. YMMV.

I went from the drawings of "this is your soul without sin" and "this
is your soul with a mortal sin" to the "Jesus loves you" stage post
Vatican II, so I was there through it.

>
> They don't even get their own self-invented dogma right - most
> Catholics I know think the words "immaculate conception" refer to Mary
> giving birth to Jesus.

On this one, you're correct. And I've even heard it taught
incorrectly. But it is somewhat understandable given the wording. Why
they needed to invent the catchphrase when they only needed to say
"born without original sin" is curious, but the RCC likes it's flowery
prose, and they may have wanted people to presume that Jesus was not
conceived through sex.

-Owen

[Mark S]

On Dec 21, 8:03 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7cbb4549-eaa8-4a3f-a145-c6d65e4c6...@pd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

And yet, Bernstein would have us believe that there wasn't a single
(to use Bob's terminology) "properly catechized Catholic" among all of
those Austrian Catholics who were member of the VPO, and that not a
single one of them knew that Jesus was a Jew before Lenny informed
them of the fact. Sound credible? I didn't think so.

This Bernstein interview is a bit sad and pathetic. It reads to me
that the VPO members were having a bit of fun at his expense, which is
quite believable, considering the political snake pit reputation
Vienna has carried over the years.

[Bob Harper]

No, I'm perfectly clear. I chose not to reply in kind. That's all I meant.

*You* are welcome.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Which of course he wasn't :)

>>
>> -Owen
>
> And yet, Bernstein would have us believe that there wasn't a single
> (to use Bob's terminology) "properly catechized Catholic" among all of
> those Austrian Catholics who were member of the VPO, and that not a
> single one of them knew that Jesus was a Jew before Lenny informed
> them of the fact. Sound credible? I didn't think so.

You assume that they were properly catechized. In Austria, at that time,
that may have been an unwarranted assumption. Or Bernstein may have been
exaggerating, though from his conducting one would never know that,
right? :)

>
> This Bernstein interview is a bit sad and pathetic. It reads to me
> that the VPO members were having a bit of fun at his expense, which is
> quite believable, considering the political snake pit reputation
> Vienna has carried over the years.

Indeed, a third possibility that seems more likely. Apparently it's been
like that for a very long time.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

"O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
news:211220121103560788%ow...@denofinequityx.com...

I thought it had something to do with somebody's mistranslation of the
Hebrew word "Almah" meaning "maiden" or "young girl." as "virgin." But
then maidens and young girls are usually virgins, so I perhaps it's not so
clear. Why is it so clear that the RCC version is "incorrect" as opposed to
it being just a different interpretation. How do Catholics (and other
Christians?) rationalize the virgin birth version with the opening of the NT
which describe Joseph's lineage from King David, thus fulfilling the
prophecy that the Messiah would descend from King David. I'm sure there
must be a theologically sound explanation. Just wondering what it is.

[Mark S]

On Dec 21, 9:55 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> They don't even get their own self-invented dogma right - most
> >> Catholics I know think the words "immaculate conception" refer to Mary
> >> giving birth to Jesus.
>
> > On this one, you're correct.  And I've even heard it taught
> > incorrectly. But it is somewhat understandable given the wording.  Why
> > they needed to invent the catchphrase when they only needed to say
> > "born without original sin" is curious, but the RCC likes it's flowery
> > prose, and they may have wanted people to presume that Jesus was not
> > conceived through sex.
>
> > -Owen
>
> I thought it had something to do with somebody's mistranslation of the
> Hebrew word "Almah" meaning "maiden" or "young girl."  as "virgin."  But
> then maidens and young girls are usually virgins, so I  perhaps it's not so
> clear.  Why is it so clear that the RCC version is "incorrect" as opposed to
> it being just a different interpretation.  How do Catholics (and other
> Christians?) rationalize the virgin birth version with the opening of the NT
> which describe Joseph's lineage from King David, thus fulfilling the
> prophecy that the Messiah would descend from King David.  I'm sure there
> must be a theologically sound explanation.  Just wondering what it is.

Aaargh!

The idea of the immaculate conception is that MARY herself was
conceived in a sinless state. That makes her different than everybody
else because - according to RCC - we are all born into a sinful state
thanks to Adam & Eve. The need for Mary to have been immaculately
conceived is the idea that she had to have been so to provide a
sinless vessel to carry Jesus to term.

What you are talking about is the virgin birth, which has nothing to
do with the immaculate conception. You're making the same mistake most
Catholics make. Congrats!

As far as the mistranslation of the word "Almah" from Isaiah, you are
on the right track. Almah translates in Hebrew as "young woman," and
that's the word used in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word for virgin is
"bethulah," and that isn't the word used in Isaiah 7:14. However, the
bigger problem lies in the fact that the verse quoted in Isaiah can
hardly be considered in any way to a prophecy. Isaiah 7 relates the
story of King Ahaz. It has nothing to do with foreshadowing the birth
of Jesus:

7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth,
or in the height above.
7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing
for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young
woman (mistranslated as virgin) shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel.
7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the
evil, and choose the good.
7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose
the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings.
7:17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy
father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim
departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

Moreover, Jesus is never called "Immanuel" anywhere in the New
testament. So much for this verse being a prophecy about Jesus.

BTW - there's a simple reason for this mistake occurring, and that is
that the NT writers who wrote about Jesus' birth in Matthew relied on
the Septuagint, which is the Greek language version of the OT. The
mistake in translation of Isaiah 7:14 happened in the Septuagint,
where the Hebrew word "almah" was mistranslated as "parthenos," which
in Greek means "virgin," and unequivocally so.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

Thus endeth the Old Testament lesson for today. Go, and sin no more.

And have a happy holiday!

[Mark S]

On Dec 21, 10:22 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

I wrote:

"However, the bigger problem lies in the fact that the verse quoted in
Isaiah can hardly be considered in any way to a prophecy."

I meant to write:

"However, the bigger problem lies in the fact that the verse quoted in

Isaiah can hardly be considered in any way to a prophecy about Jesus."

Actually, I did write that, but I erroneous chopped off a few words as
I was rearranging/editing my post before hitting the send button.

[Mark S]

On Dec 21, 9:55 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Read here about the Immaculate Conception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception

[Kip Williams]

Bob Harper wrote, On 12/21/12 11:32 AM:

> On 12/21/12 8:00 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> Bob Harper wrote, On 12/21/12 10:50 AM:
>>> I'll skip the 'self-invented' crack, so typical of you in your
>>> bitterness, and
>> ...
>>
>> You seem unclear on the concept of "skipping" something. What it means
>> is you don't bring up the thing you're skipping and characterize it and
>> the person who said it.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>

> No, I'm perfectly clear. I chose not to reply in kind. That's all I meant.

You want to have it both ways. You wanted to appear above all that, but
you still wanted to pivot and drop off a personal insult. When you skip
something, you forego all that, so you clearly didn't skip anything.

> *You* are welcome.

Oh, *many* thanks for that, I'm *sure*. When all else fails, just
emphasize some of your words, and you'll feel better.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

Here's what I thought: That Catholics (and some other Christians?) believe
(I don't care what *you* or *I* think is true in this context) that Mary
conceived without sex (Immaculate Conception), but that other Christians
believe she conceived in the normal way and they "deserved" to be the bearer
of the Messiah because she was born without sin (the other definition of
Immaculate Conception).

For those how can't stand theoretical discussions, personally, I don't
believe either version, of course. Happy to know where I stand on this
question? I can't imagine why, but I hope it makes you feel good.

[Dufus]

>On Dec 21, 1:18 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Happy to know where I stand on this
> question?  I can't imagine why, but I hope it makes you feel good.

Sorry, I knew James Brown, and you're no James Brown :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgDrJ5Z2rKw

[Bob Harper]

My words contained no insult, personal r otherwise, just a statement of
the fact as I saw it. Mark *is* bitter (or scornful; take your pick)
when it comes to religious belief, and saying something like he did *is*
typical of him. It is you who choose to construe my words negatively,
which is your problem, not mine.

Bob Harper

[Mark S]

On Dec 21, 12:35 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> My words contained no insult, personal r otherwise, just a statement of
> the fact as I saw it. Mark *is* bitter (or scornful; take your pick)
> when it comes to religious belief, and saying something like he did *is*
> typical of him. It is you who choose to construe my words negatively,
> which is your problem, not mine.

I'm as bitter/scornful of religion and religionists as I am of fairies
and those who believe in them. Belief in gods and belief in fairies
have an equal basis in reality, after all, which is to say, no basis
in reality.

I'm less bitter about the fairy believers as they don't feel it
necessary to shove their beliefs down the throats of others. They
don't try to get fairy-recognizing laws passed. They don't expect
special treatment from the government and by everybody else when it
comes to their wacky beliefs.

That's the bailiwick of the religionists. Any rational person would
feel scorn towards such fantasists.

[Kip Williams]

Bob Harper wrote, On 12/21/12 3:35 PM:

> On 12/21/12 10:40 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> Bob Harper wrote, On 12/21/12 11:32 AM:
>>> On 12/21/12 8:00 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>>>> Bob Harper wrote, On 12/21/12 10:50 AM:
>>>>> I'll skip the 'self-invented' crack, so typical of you in your
>>>>> bitterness, and
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You seem unclear on the concept of "skipping" something. What it means
>>>> is you don't bring up the thing you're skipping and characterize it and
>>>> the person who said it.
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>> No, I'm perfectly clear. I chose not to reply in kind. That's all I
>>> meant.
>>
>> You want to have it both ways. You wanted to appear above all that, but
>> you still wanted to pivot and drop off a personal insult. When you skip
>> something, you forego all that, so you clearly didn't skip anything.
>>
>>> *You* are welcome.
>>
>> Oh, *many* thanks for that, I'm *sure*. When all else fails, just
>> emphasize some of your words, and you'll feel better.
>

> My words contained no insult, personal r otherwise, just a statement of
> the fact as I saw it. Mark *is* bitter (or scornful; take your pick)
> when it comes to religious belief, and saying something like he did *is*
> typical of him. It is you who choose to construe my words negatively,
> which is your problem, not mine.

Yes, your reactions are always facts. Mark's are just bitterness at work.

You don't even know you're doing it, but you just know it's someone
else's fault.


Kip W

[Bob Harper]

So, heads I win, tails you lose is your operating assumption, it would
seem. Sorry, I won't play that game.

Bob Harper

[Kip Williams]

Bob Harper wrote, On 12/22/12 2:52 AM:

> So, heads I win, tails you lose is your operating assumption, it would
> seem. Sorry, I won't play that game.

You've been playing the "I'm rubber and you're glue" game, and now
you're playing another one called "I'm not playing that game."

Now I'll play the "This game's boring" game. Later, maybe I'll play the
"Throwing snowballs at my daughter" game.


Kip W

[JohnGavin]

This brazen confidence of "I know what I see with my 2 eyes, and everything else is fantasy" is nothing short of the disease of this day and age. It's false confidence and conceit at its worst. It has become the strongest and most prevalent form of intolerant and closed-minded fanaticism of this age.

[Mark S]

That statement betrays the simplistic thinking of the religious mind.

No one saw men walking on the moon before we landed our Apollo
missions, but it isn't a fantasy that it happened.

No one can see microbes with their two eyes without the aid of a
microscope, but we know they exist.

There's no false confidence or conceit there. There's knowledge.

Religious belief is by its very definition the largest conceit man has
ever devised for himself. Name something else in man's experience that
can be asserted as being a truth without a shred of evidence that
would stand up in a court of law. Every other activity man engages in
needs to have some kind of dispositive evidence behind it to be taken
seriously by rational adults. Yet religion deals in wishful thinking
that has no basis whatsoever in fact.

What's most disappointing about your kind of narrow thinking is that
you rail against people being closed minded while believing that your
particular version of religious fantasy is the only acceptable
placeholder for any mysteries remaining to mankind. You don't even
allow that other religions may have the answer and that your beliefs
may be totally wrong/fantastic, even when set against other religions,
let alone when set against scientific/rational thought.

Who's the conceited one?

[Bob Harper]

Well, John, Mark's reply (below) is a perfect demonstration of the truth
of your comment and of the limits to the materialist mind. I think
Shakespeare said it best:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-Hamlet, I,v,166-167

Bob Harper

[Norman Schwartz]

Mark S wrote:
> On Dec 21, 12:15 am, Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Le vendredi 21 d�cembre 2012 08:43:35 UTC+1, Oscar a �crit :

>>
>>> After Bernstein's death Rolling Stone magazine published a long,
>>> but excerpted, sit-down interview over dinner with Lenny, America's
>>> greatest cultural ambassador of the last half of the 20th century.
>>
>> Ah, there's the myth again of Bernstein liberating Europe from
>> anti-semitism 25 years after the event.
>>
>> The downside of these big, pseudo-intimate interviews is you have to
>> accept every piece of bullshit you're getting, otherwise the
>> interview stops being big and intimate.
>>
>> Nonetheless I can imagine it's a great read. I just wouldn't take it
>> as gospel.
>
>
> Bernstein would have gotten the same reaction from many American
> Catholics, especially pre-Vatican II. Catholics are schooled in the
> dogma and sacraments of their religion, not the Bible. I'm sure many
> would be shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew and not a Catholic.
>
> They don't even get their own self-invented dogma right - most
> Catholics I know think the words "immaculate conception" refer to Mary
> giving birth to Jesus.

The story goes that Jesus was Jewish, as was Mary and both her parents.

[graham]

"Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9WmBs.409978$Rs1.3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

He also said: "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose"
MofV I.3
Graham

[Kip Williams]

graham wrote, On 12/22/12 2:47 PM:

> "Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:9WmBs.409978$Rs1.3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

>> Well, John, Mark's reply (below) is a perfect demonstration of the truth
>> of your comment and of the limits to the materialist mind. I think
>> Shakespeare said it best:
>>
>> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
>> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
>> -Hamlet, I,v,166-167
>>
> He also said: "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose"
> MofV I.3

Yeah, but Bob's quote is accurate and to the point. Philosophies and
religions don't know what wonders are under their noses, concerning
themselves with cloud castles and nonsensical fancies and overlooking
the amazing sights of deep space or the incredible panoply of life
teeming in a drop of water.


Kip W

[graham]

"Kip Williams" <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NMoBs.44040$LS5....@newsfe10.iad...

I'm certainly aware of the wonder that's around us and am certainly aware of
your last phrase since I spend most of my work time looking down a
microscope at the remains of life millions of years old.
Graham
Atheist since early teens when the god stuff stopped making any sense.

[Bob Harper]

As was his adoptive father, Joseph.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Yep, that Shakespeare guy is full of quotations. But what's your point?

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

I think you've got it backwards, Kip. I see the wonders of the created
world, but I know there's more. the materialists are the ones with
tunnel vision.

Bob Harper

[graham]

"Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:qpsBs.964101$2a.3...@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...

Do I need one?

[Mark S]

On Dec 22, 4:42 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/12 12:31 PM, Kip Williams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > graham wrote, On 12/22/12 2:47 PM:

> >> "Bob Harper" <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >>news:9WmBs.409978$Rs1.3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> >>> Well, John, Mark's reply (below) is a perfect demonstration of the truth
> >>> of your comment and of the limits to the materialist mind. I think
> >>> Shakespeare said it best:
>
> >>> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> >>> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
> >>> -Hamlet, I,v,166-167
>
> >> He also said: "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose"
> >> MofV I.3
>
> > Yeah, but Bob's quote is accurate and to the point. Philosophies and
> > religions don't know what wonders are under their noses, concerning
> > themselves with cloud castles and nonsensical fancies and overlooking
> > the amazing sights of deep space or the incredible panoply of life
> > teeming in a drop of water.
>
> > Kip W
>
> I think you've got it backwards, Kip. I see the wonders of the created
> world, but I know there's more. the materialists are the ones with
> tunnel vision.

I think you've got it sideways, Bob.

The problem with you religionists is that you continue to believe that
there's some mystery to things that man has explained rationally. You
cling to that which was a mystery to the ignorant goatherds who wrote
the Bible, rather than taking advantage of the knowledge man has
gained in the intervening centuries. That knowledge includes coming up
with the scientific method as the best way to explain that which was
once inexplainable, and realizing that there's a much better way to
view the universe than the view dependent on faith, especially when
that faith sits in contradiction to facts and rational thought.

By so doing, you close yourself off to new mysteries that man has
uncovered as a result of his search for real knowledge. You're stuck
in a time warp of human thought, unable and unwilling to allow your
vision to evolve beyond the fears and stupidities that passed for
"truth" during the time when our knowledge set was in in its infancy.

Worst of all, that time warp not only blinds you to new knowledge and
new mysteries, it acts as an albatross that keeps you from accepting
settled science and other facts that really aren't in dispute.

Tunnel vision is one thing. Ostrich vision is something else.

[Kip Williams]

Bob Harper wrote, On 12/22/12 7:42 PM:

> On 12/22/12 12:31 PM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> graham wrote, On 12/22/12 2:47 PM:
>>> "Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:9WmBs.409978$Rs1.3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>>>> Well, John, Mark's reply (below) is a perfect demonstration of the
>>>> truth
>>>> of your comment and of the limits to the materialist mind. I think
>>>> Shakespeare said it best:
>>>>
>>>> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
>>>> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
>>>> -Hamlet, I,v,166-167
>>>>
>>> He also said: "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose"
>>> MofV I.3
>>
>> Yeah, but Bob's quote is accurate and to the point. Philosophies and
>> religions don't know what wonders are under their noses, concerning
>> themselves with cloud castles and nonsensical fancies and overlooking
>> the amazing sights of deep space or the incredible panoply of life
>> teeming in a drop of water.
>>

> I think you've got it backwards, Kip. I see the wonders of the created
> world, but I know there's more. the materialists are the ones with
> tunnel vision.

The cosmos pale in comparison to a sheepherder's guesses about Hell,
just as the intricacies of fractals are nothing next to some windy
conceit involving the repeated invocation of magical numbers like 7. Got it.


Kip W

[boombox]

On Dec 23, 12:36 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Harper wrote, On 12/22/12 7:42 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/22/12 12:31 PM, Kip Williams wrote:
> >> graham wrote, On 12/22/12 2:47 PM:

> >>> "Bob Harper" <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >>>news:9WmBs.409978$Rs1.3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> >>>> Well, John, Mark's reply (below) is a perfect demonstration of the
> >>>> truth
> >>>> of your comment and of the limits to the materialist mind. I think
> >>>> Shakespeare said it best:
>
> >>>> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> >>>> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
> >>>> -Hamlet, I,v,166-167
>
> >>> He also said: "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose"
> >>> MofV I.3
>
> >> Yeah, but Bob's quote is accurate and to the point. Philosophies and
> >> religions don't know what wonders are under their noses, concerning
> >> themselves with cloud castles and nonsensical fancies and overlooking
> >> the amazing sights of deep space or the incredible panoply of life
> >> teeming in a drop of water.
>
> > I think you've got it backwards, Kip. I see the wonders of the created
> > world, but I know there's more. the materialists are the ones with
> > tunnel vision.
>
> The cosmos pale in comparison to a sheepherder's guesses about Hell,
> just as the intricacies of fractals are nothing next to some windy
> conceit involving the repeated invocation of magical numbers like 7. Got it.
>
> Kip W

Coming from a family of scientists, I know that there are many who
accept the science and the mystery, do not claim one to be more
fascinating than the other, nor find a need to compare them.

[Mark S]

Most studies I've seen show that about a third of scientists have
belief in some kind of god (compare that to the 80-90% of general
population Americans who express some belief in god). That belief
varies with discipline, with the social sciences having a higher
percentage of believers than do the natural sciences. See here:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It's clear that the vast majority of scientists don't think like your
particular family of scientists. Your family provides the exception
that proves the rule.

[JohnGavin]

I wonder if you would even pick up Dr. Eban Alexander's book "Proof of Heaven". Dr. Alexander is a Neurosurgeon and Harvard Medical School professor who relates his experiences during a long coma from a rare spinal disease.

You'll probably find a way to denounce it before picking it up..........or if you do make the effort, it will doubtlessly be with the agenda of discrediting it.....

I have listened to many, many debates with the late CHristopher Hitchens, and I always tried to keep an open mind.....enough to say that he was often right on many points - and I always appreciated his brilliance.

Can you afford Dr. Eban the same respect??

[Bob Harper]

On 12/23/12 7:27 AM, boombox wrote:
(snip)

>
> Coming from a family of scientists, I know that there are many who
> accept the science and the mystery, do not claim one to be more
> fascinating than the other, nor find a need to compare them.

A sensible attitude.

Bob Harper

[Mark S]

I've seen Dr Eban interviewed on the TV machine. I don't hear anything
out of him that I haven't heard out of other people who have been in
comas, and who believe the went to heaven while in such a state.

The question that never seems to get asked of the Dr Eban's of the
world is why they would trust any thoughts that they had when their
brain was shutting down almost all cognitive functions to stay alive,
as happens when one goes into a coma. A person in such a state gets
down to involuntary functions and - most likely - the most-deeply-
embedded memories one has, which of course includes religious beliefs
that have been drilled into most of us since our early childhood, even
before we get to our ABCs and math.

Have you ever noticed that none of these "I've seen the light" types
ever come back with a vision or experience that strays from the vision
of the supposed afterlife that we all have drilled into us from an
early age? All of the reference points are quickly recognizable as the
stuff of popular received opinion. It's a cartoon description of what
an afterlife supposedly is, literally - you can see such visions
depicted in cartoons.

One wouldn't trust an engineering solution one came up with while in a
coma, so why would one believe there was any truth to a spiritual
belief/experience one had when their brain was operating at its very
margins?

As far as Christopher Hitchens goes, he is one my favorite writers. I
have also seen him debate the religionists, always winning, BTW. I
have also read many of his books. Now, you say that you've watched
Hitchens debate, but have you ever read any of his books? If not, then
I see no reason to bother reading Dr Eban's book, because my
experience of Dr Eban to date has been through his TV appearances,
just like yours with Hitchens has been (I assume) exclusively through
the TV. If you tell me you've actually read "God is not great," for
example, then I'll take up Eban's book. But until then, I don't see
any reason for me to invest more of my time in discovering what Eban
has to say in his book than you have in discovering what Hitchens had
to say in his many books.

[Bob Harper]

On 12/23/12 10:21 AM, Mark S wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:31 am, JohnGavin<dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> I wonder if you would even pick up Dr. Eban Alexander's book "Proof of Heaven". Dr. Alexander is a Neurosurgeon and Harvard Medical School professor who relates his experiences during a long coma from a rare spinal disease.
>>
>> You'll probably find a way to denounce it before picking it up..........or if you do make the effort, it will doubtlessly be with the agenda of discrediting it.....
>>
>> I have listened to many, many debates with the late CHristopher Hitchens, and I always tried to keep an open mind.....enough to say that he was often right on many points - and I always appreciated his brilliance.
>>
>> Can you afford Dr. Eban the same respect??
>
>

(paraphrase long, predictable response from Mark):
No.

Bob Harper

[Mark S]

To the contrary, I'm affording Dr Eban EXACTLY the same respect John
says he has afforded Hitchens. My response made that more than clear.

[Frank Berger]

Another misuse of the term "exception that proves the rule." It's just an
exception. This is besides the idiocy of calling a third "an exception."

A sign that says "No parking after 3 PM" is an exception that proves the
rule that you can park before 3 PM.

[Mark S]

I throw those kind of things in once in awhile just to watch you go
after a tangential issue, rather than addressing the core of the
argument I'm making.

Works every time.

[JohnGavin]

[JohnGavin]

The man is a Neurosurgeon and Harvard Medical Professor for goodness sake!!!
Don't you think he knows the mechanics of the brain even a bit better than you do??
Read the book.

>
> Have you ever noticed that none of these "I've seen the light" types
>
> ever come back with a vision or experience that strays from the vision
>
> of the supposed afterlife that we all have drilled into us from an
>
> early age?

Not true. Betty Eadie's "Embraced by the Light" illustrates many experiences outside of the Christian beliefs that she had been raised in.

This is what you do. You draw your own airtight conclusions to justify your prejudices.

[MiNe 109]

In article
<2e39ce6c-69f5-48b5...@uc4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

And an incomplete understanding of the word 'prove' in this context.

Stephen

[Frank Berger]

LOL Like I never address "the core" of your arguments.

[Frank Berger]

There's another thing he does. He gathers and reports "facts." Lots and
lots of facts (some true, some irrelevant). Then he claims these "facts"
prove whatever position his instinct or intuition tells him to hold. He's
not being dishonest. He can't help it. He needs to know that the facts
support him. This is combined with the the belief that evey problem has a
solution.

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

JohnGavin wrote:

> This is what you do. You draw your own airtight conclusions to
> justify your prejudices.

Is there another way to find the truth in matters beyond life and death?

Henk

[Mark S]

On Dec 23, 12:16 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Have you ever noticed that none of these "I've seen the light" types
>
> > ever come back with a vision or experience that strays from the vision
>
> > of the supposed afterlife that we all have drilled into us from an
>
> > early age?
>
> Not true.   Betty Eadie's "Embraced by the Light" illustrates many experiences outside of the Christian beliefs that she had been raised in.

So now I've got to read yet another book before you've even cracked
the cover on Hitchens. Typical.

BTW - here's a link to a Newsweek article where Dr Eben Alexander hit
the salient points in his imagined journey:

"There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body
lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well.
While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by
the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness
journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension
I’d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have
been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.

"But that dimension—in rough outline, the same one described by
countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states—
is there."

There it is. The Doctor parrots the same old description of heaven
offered by "countless subjects." Anyone surprised?

More unoriginal pap:

"Toward the beginning of my adventure, I was in a place of clouds.
Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up sharply against the deep
blue-black sky. Higher than the clouds—immeasurably higher—flocks of
transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long,
streamerlike lines behind them. Birds? Angels? These words registered
later, when I was writing down my recollections. But neither of these
words do justice to the beings themselves, which were quite simply
different from anything I have known on this planet. They were more
advanced. Higher forms."

Right. Birds and angels. Never heard of those before, have you?

Just in case you missed it in Sunday School, the good doctor
continues:

"A sound, huge and booming like a glorious chant, came down from
above, and I wondered if the winged beings were producing it. Again,
thinking about it later, it occurred to me that the joy of these
creatures, as they soared along, was such that they had to make this
noise—that if the joy didn’t come out of them this way then they would
simply not otherwise be able to contain it."

Right on cue, the heavenly choir makes its appearance! Unfortunately,
Dr Alexander doesn't tell us if the "Hallelujah" they were singing was
written by Handel or Beethoven.

Amazing that a man in a coma could not only experience so much, but
have the explanation for it all once he regained full consciousness!

Things get better, as the fine doctor's libido inevitably kicks in:

"For most of my journey, someone else was with me. A woman. She was
young, and I remember what she looked like in complete detail. She had
high cheekbones and deep-blue eyes. Golden brown tresses framed her
lovely face. When first I saw her, we were riding along together on an
intricately patterned surface, which after a moment I recognized as
the wing of a butterfly. In fact, millions of butterflies were all
around us—vast fluttering waves of them, dipping down into the woods
and coming back up around us again. It was a river of life and color,
moving through the air."

Yes, the doctor is describing a world that none of us could ever
imagine! Right, with butterflies and other creatures none of us have
ever seen. And a hot chick, as well! I get Oscar can't wait to get
there to meet all the hot-bodied girls!

The rest of the article goes from one embarrassing vision to the next,
with Dr Alexander able to provide us with the answer to what it all
means! Isn't he blessed and special?! Imagine, the great god of heaven
himself picked Dr Eben Alexander to carry this vision to mankind.

But keep an open mind, friends. The good doctor is providing us with
the TRUTH, a truth that none of us could have ever visualized before
his regurgitations of the expected and the obvious.

BTW, John - this is what YOU do: grab onto anything and everything
that you think adds some level of scientific credibility to your
fantastic religious beliefs. We're supposed to believe this story just
because the person telling the fantasy happens to be a doctor? When
the story sounds no more original than any of the others we've heard
over the years?

Please.

[Mark S]

On Dec 23, 6:50 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> BTW - here's a link to a Newsweek article where Dr Eben Alexander hit
> the salient points in his imagined journey:

Here's the link to the Newsweek article: http://tinyurl.com/962djlf

[JohnGavin]

On Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:50:14 PM UTC-5, Mark S wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:16 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
> BTW - here's a link to a Newsweek article where Dr Eben Alexander hit
>
> the salient points in his imagined journey:
>
>
>
> "There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body
>
> lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well.
>
> While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by
>
> the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness
>
> journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension
>
> I’d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have
>
> been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.
>
>
>
> "But that dimension—in rough outline, the same one described by
>
> countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states—
>
> is there."
>
>
>
> There it is. The Doctor parrots the same old description of heaven
>
> offered by "countless subjects." Anyone surprised?
>
>

Hold on just a minute!

Why the negative take on the commonality of the experiences? I would take this to be evidence that these experiences are more likely authentic, since they are shared by so many.

So what have you done Mark? You've reduced a Harvard professor and Neurosurgeon into an ignorant flake. Who stands a chance with you? "Telling the fantasy" is your way of saying "anything I don't believe in is fantasy". Next thing you'll be calling Dr. Alexander mentally incompetent.

[Robert Pecchioni]

JohnGavin <dag...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:86463b08-5b8b-4180...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:50:14 PM UTC-5, Mark S wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 12:16�pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> BTW - here's a link to a Newsweek article where Dr Eben Alexander hit
>>
>> the salient points in his imagined journey:
>>
>>
>>
>> "There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body
>>
>> lay in coma, my mind�my conscious, inner self�was alive and well.
>>
>> While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by
>>
>> the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness
>>
>> journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension
>>
>> I�d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have
>>
>> been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> "But that dimension�in rough outline, the same one described by
>>
>> countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical
>> states�
>>
>> is there."
>>
>>
>>
>> There it is. The Doctor parrots the same old description of heaven
>>
>> offered by "countless subjects." Anyone surprised?
>>
>>
> Hold on just a minute!
>
> Why the negative take on the commonality of the experiences? I would
> take this to be evidence that these experiences are more likely
> authentic, since they are shared by so many.

Are you aware that alien abduction stories are also quite common, and are
remarkably similar in detail?

[Mark S]

On Dec 23, 7:02 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hold on just a minute!
>
> Why the negative take on the commonality of the experiences?   I would take this to be evidence that these experiences are more likely authentic, since they are shared by so many.
>

Ever heard of Our Lady of Fatima and the so-called Miracle of the Sun?
Look it up - 70,000 to 100,000 people gripped by mass hallucination,
imagining en mass that the sun was hurtling toward the earth, that it
zig-zagged across the sky, that the sun turned blue, and then turned
all the colors of the rainbow, that people's wet clothing was dried
instantaneously. Lots of documented shared experiences there.

Of course, it couldn't possibly be that staring at the sun makes your
eyes see crazy things, could it? It couldn't be that the mob mentality
set in among these believers who were predisposed to believe in the
miracles they had been told they'd see, could it?

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

> So what have you done Mark?   You've reduced a Harvard professor and Neurosurgeon into an ignorant flake.

Hey, at least people have heard of him now that he's come out with his
fantasy. Some people - like you - even believe it's the god's truth!
I'm sure his wallet will get a lot fatter now than it would had he not
spoken up. Now, he can do the talk show circuit, maybe even the
lecture circuit at the fundie churches.

>Who stands a chance with you?

Oh, people who can offer some proof beyond "because I said so." I got
past that once I realized my parents didn't have all the answers.

>"Telling the fantasy" is your way of saying "anything I don't believe in is fantasy".  Next thing you'll be calling Dr. Alexander mentally incompetent.<

Not mentally incompetent, just delusional. He's won't harm anyone
beyond harming his own credibility, though who knows? He could decide
to bring his new knowledge set into the operating room and act upon
it, at which point, he could start hurting people.

[JohnGavin]

On Monday, December 24, 2012 2:08:05 AM UTC-5, Mark S wrote:
> On Dec 23, 7:02 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey, at least people have heard of him now that he's come out with his
>
> fantasy. Some people - like you - even believe it's the god's truth!
>
> I'm sure his wallet will get a lot fatter now than it would had he not
>
> spoken up. Now, he can do the talk show circuit, maybe even the
>
> lecture circuit at the fundie churches.
>

Think again. By writing such a book he is taking many risks in his professional life. The general ideology at Harvard doesn't meld well with the Doctor's revelations. He has risked the respect of his colleagues, both academic and medical, his present and future standing at Harvard, and at the hospitals he works at.

People who go through these experiences act out of a sense of gratitude, at least the ones that I have found to be credible.

>
> >Who stands a chance with you?
>
>
>
> Oh, people who can offer some proof beyond "because I said so." I got
>
> past that once I realized my parents didn't have all the answers.
>

You seem to think that people who have had spiritual experiences, or all religious people in general are out to get you - or to compel you to believe as they do. The above statement about your parents are a clue to that, and perhaps this is why you are so angry about religion, spirituality and mysticism.

You are disregarding the fact that many of us don't care to compel or even have the slightest desire to have others believe as we do. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If your parents are no longer alive then I would have to say that you are angry at phantoms that no longer exist.

>
> >"Telling the fantasy" is your way of saying "anything I don't believe in is fantasy".  Next thing you'll be calling Dr. Alexander mentally incompetent.<
>
>
>
> Not mentally incompetent, just delusional. He's won't harm anyone
>
> beyond harming his own credibility, though who knows? He could decide
>
> to bring his new knowledge set into the operating room and act upon
>
> it, at which point, he could start hurting people.

Another example of a normally intelligent and reasonable person (you) saying silly things.

[Mark S]

On Dec 24, 7:26 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > >Who stands a chance with you?
>
> > Oh, people who can offer some proof beyond "because I said so." I got
>
> > past that once I realized my parents didn't have all the answers.
>
> You seem to think that people who have had spiritual experiences, or all religious people in general are out to get you - or to compel you to believe as they do.  The above statement about your parents are a clue to that, and perhaps this is why you are so angry about religion, spirituality and mysticism.
>
> You are disregarding the fact that many of us don't care to compel or even have the slightest desire to have others believe as we do.  Nobody is forcing you to do anything.  If your parents are no longer alive then I would have to say that you are angry at phantoms that no longer exist.

I'm not angry at all. That doesn't stop the religionists from
projecting their anger onto others. People who are crooks think
everyone else is a crook as well. People who believe in worshiping
gods believe that if you don't worship gods you must worship something
else, like money or yourself, never considering that for many of us,
the very idea of worshiping anything is silly and demeaning.

As far as my parents - who are deceased - the words I offered weren't
specific to them. Saying "my parents didn't know everything" is just
as common a phrase to hear out of an adult as is repeating Mark
Twain's bon mot about his dad seemingly getting smarter the older
Twain got.

As far as religionists not forcing others to do anything, are you
serious? When the Christianistas in the state of Texas mandate that
creationism be taught in science classes, that's forcing religious
fantasy on others, and teaching such fantasy as if it were fact.

You're welcome to your mysticism/spirituality/whatever. Just don't
expect me to think that there's anything believable or intellectually
rigorous about such things. In my books, it's a bunch of feel-whatever-
I-want-to-feel intellectual masturbation.

> > >"Telling the fantasy" is your way of saying "anything I don't believe in is fantasy".  Next thing you'll be calling Dr. Alexander mentally incompetent.<
>
> > Not mentally incompetent, just delusional. He's won't harm anyone
beyond harming his own credibility, though who knows? He could decide
to bring his new knowledge set into the operating room and act upon
it, at which point, he could start hurting people.

>>Another example of a normally intelligent and reasonable person (you) saying silly things.<<

My point, John, is that you are entitled to your beliefs, even if I
find those beliefs to be fantastic.

But don't expect me to consider those beliefs to be any more credible
than a child's belief in Santa Claus if you can't provide some kind of
objective proof to back up your beliefs. Citing this person or that
person or a thousand people's or 100,000 people's belief in an
afterlife isn't proof and doesn't make it so. It's just an opinion
founded on, well, not much of anything. "Read this guy's book on his
experience in the afterlife" is just as incredible a read to me as is
my reading about Adam and Eve. Can you give me one good reason why I
should consider such a book to be factually credible, and not mere
opinion (and opinions formed when the man was in a coma, fer Chriss
sake!)?

I wonder if you would be as accepting of these kind of stories if our
intrepid reporter came back with a vision that heaven was really more
like what we think hell is like. What if our traveler compared the
eternal worship in heaven to the kind of worship one finds today in
North Korea? What if our traveler reported that women were treated as
slaves in heaven? You'd be the first one to aver that our traveler was
making up a fantasy of their own creation. I doubt you'd embrace their
report as the god's truth.

Or would you?

[M forever]

On Dec 21, 2:43 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> << You know, in 1988 I took the orchestra to Israel — think of it: the Vienna Philharmonic — and one of the works we played in Jerusalem was, in fact, Mahler's Sixth. _That_ was an experience! Imagine...this all-Catholic orchestra whose players, before I conducted them, didn't know what a Jew was — musicians growing up in the birthplace of Freud, Schönberg, Wittgenstein, Karl Kraus...not to mention Mahler

Obviously next to pure fabrication, just like Bernsiein said they
didn't play Mahler before him. And a little sad, too, that after all
the success and admiration he enjoyed with and from the orchestra and
all the intense music making they rewarded him with, he felt the need
to stab them in the back with this BS story, just to make himself look
like the great educator once again. I don't doubt that many of the
players had no intimate knowledge of matters of the Jewish faith, and
that some of them hadn't realized that Jesus was indeed Jewish, and
nothing else, certainly not "a Christian" - most people don't know or
understand these things. I doubt though that Bernstein took a detailed
and comprehensive poll of what all the 140+ members of the orchestra
knew and didn't know about these things.
But, as he says himself, they came forward and asked him to explain a
few things, and that is what they got in return for their interest. It
appears to me that Bernstein himself was a whole lot more stuck in the
whole tribal identity thing himself than one would expect from such a
highly educated and cosmopolitan man. But then it must have been
difficult to grow up in New England at the time when he did, when
prominent public figures like Joe Kennedy openly supported people like
Hitler and anti-semitism in general. It's sad though that Bernstein
had to project those things on the musicians who invited him to work
with them, and who had more or less all grown up after the war.

[M forever]

Oh, and BTW, "war der Christe Juedische" is completely wrong and
garbled German.

[M forever]

On Dec 22, 7:39 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 12/22/12 10:50 AM, Norman Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark S wrote:

> >> On Dec 21, 12:15 am, Herman<her...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >>> Le vendredi 21 décembre 2012 08:43:35 UTC+1, Oscar a écrit :
>
> >>>> After Bernstein's death Rolling Stone magazine published a long,
> >>>> but excerpted, sit-down interview over dinner with Lenny, America's
> >>>> greatest cultural ambassador of the last half of the 20th century.
>
> >>> Ah, there's the myth again of Bernstein liberating Europe from
> >>> anti-semitism 25 years after the event.
>
> >>> The downside of these big, pseudo-intimate interviews is you have to
> >>> accept every piece of bullshit you're getting, otherwise the
> >>> interview stops being big and intimate.
>
> >>> Nonetheless I can imagine it's a great read. I just wouldn't take it
> >>> as gospel.
>
> >> Bernstein would have gotten the same reaction from many American
> >> Catholics, especially pre-Vatican II. Catholics are schooled in the
> >> dogma and sacraments of their religion, not the Bible. I'm sure many
> >> would be shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew and not a Catholic.
>
> >> They don't even get their own self-invented dogma right - most
> >> Catholics I know think the words "immaculate conception" refer to Mary
> >> giving birth to Jesus.
>
> > The story goes that Jesus was Jewish, as was Mary and both her parents.
>
> As was his adoptive father, Joseph.

We don't actually know who Jesus' parents (if he ever lived) were.
That's why none of that is mentioned in the oldest existing gospel,
Mark. The nativity stuff was just added later to fill out the bizarre
theology which developed to explain away why "the Messiah" had just
been deleted by the Romans like a common criminal. And to explain how
a guy from Nazareth could be "the Messiah" because in order to be that
savior, he had to be a descendant of David and from Bethlehem.

[M forever]

On Dec 23, 10:02 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:50:14 PM UTC-5, Mark S wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 12:16 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW - here's a link to a Newsweek article where Dr Eben Alexander hit
>
> > the salient points in his imagined journey:
>
> > "There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body
>
> > lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well.
>
> > While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by
>
> > the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness
>
> > journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension
>
> > I’d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have
>
> > been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.
>
> > "But that dimension—in rough outline, the same one described by
>
> > countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states—
>
> > is there."
>
> > There it is. The Doctor parrots the same old description of heaven
>
> > offered by "countless subjects." Anyone surprised?
>
> Hold on just a minute!
>
> Why the negative take on the commonality of the experiences?   I would take this to be evidence that these experiences are more likely authentic, since they are shared by so many.
>

I agree with you about that. Since so many people have those kinds of
experiences, they must be "real" in some sense. But, obviously, not in
the sense that there are "real" experiences of the "supernatural" -
if that was the case, the many religions wouldn't be so diverse in
their narrative beyond those common, shared elements.

What this proves is that that kind of experience of the supernatural
is something that is part of our psychological makeup. Kind of like
children all around the world see everything around them as animated,
operating out of interests which coincide with those of the child.

[Mark S]

Of course, "Nazareth" didn't even exist as a city when Jesus
supposedly trod the earth. The descriptions of the topography of
Nazareth found in the NT don't at all conform to what it looks like
today. The famous story of Jesus being led to a precipice by his
hometown neighbors to be cast down is pure fantasy, as there are no
precipices in or around what we today call Nazareth.

Nazareth really dates back to about the 4th century, when the church
decided to set up a new tourist stop in the good ol' tour of the Holy
Land business.

BTW - some Biblical scholars contend that the whole "Jesus of
Nazareth" thing is a misreading of "Jesus the Nasorean or Nazirite."
In the OT, the Nazirites were those who took a vow to abstain from
wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins, and any intoxicating liquors, who
didn't cut their hair and who kept away from graves, even those of
their family members. "Nazir" means set aside or consecrated in
Hebrew.

The Hebrew root word "nester" means a branch. Ergo, the word Nazarene
when used in reference to Jesus has to do with him being of the branch
of Jesse, or his being a Nazirite (consecrated), not from a town
called Nazareth.

Read any critical analysis of this and you'll hear all kinds of
excuses at lame explanations for how the town of Nazareth must have
existed when Jesus was alive. It didn't.

[t]

>>
>>>> Mark S wrote:

> Read any critical analysis of this and you'll hear all kinds of
> excuses at lame explanations for how the town of Nazareth must have
> existed when Jesus was alive. It didn't.
>

But how can you say there was not a different place, called Nazareth at
the time locally, which then was abandoned, and the new Nazareth which
came centuries later had no connection with the Nazareth of Christ? I
mean, what evidence is there that no such place existed in 4 AD or
whenever?

[Mark S]

Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The
Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of
settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns
and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud names 63 Galilean towns, but knows nothing of Nazareth, nor
does early rabbinic literature.

St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'.

Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times,
Nazareth not at all.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first
noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

The gospels all refer to Nazareth as a "city," and a city that was
large enough to have a synagogue, and enough people in it to be able
to form a mob to threaten Jesus. If nothing else, Nazareth would have
had to have been a large enough place that the phrase "Jesus of
Nazareth" would mean something to people, ie: they would have heard of
the city before, like the City of Jerusalem. I mean, what good would
it do to refer to Jesus as being "of Nazareth" if the city didn't ring
a bell?

[Herman]

Le mardi 25 décembre 2012 19:19:41 UTC+1, M forever a écrit :


> Obviously next to pure fabrication, just like Bernsiein said they
>
> didn't play Mahler before him. And a little sad, too, that after all
>
> the success and admiration he enjoyed with and from the orchestra and
>
> all the intense music making they rewarded him with, he felt the need
>
> to stab them in the back with this BS story,

This is guaranteed by the form of the interview, an "intimate" marathon sit-down with the interviewee, no double checking, or sceptical follow-up questions, just pure adulation. It's funny that this interview is advertised this way, the big Bernstein brain fart, even when you know (except when you're Oscar) that you're going to be served a gigantic pile of unadulterated BS.

[JohnGavin]

Read below - especially note the first paragraph:

(from Wiki answers)


One thing I noticed when reading about the question of Nazareth's existence during the time of Jesus, which we will assume was around 4 BC - AD 40, was that much of the so-called "evidence" of Nazareth's non-existence comes from professed atheists, or rather anti-theists, who presumably have a vested interest in "disproving" the Bible.


Some other information to consider:
Nazareth, according to tradition, was a poor town, and one of less than great repute. The Bible states that people asked, "can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Perhaps Biblical Nazareth was a small gathering of homes, but not an officially-recognized town.
Lack of evidence is no evidence at all. We cannot assume that the lack of archaeological evidence for an ancient city or town called Nazareth proves that the city/town did not exist, only that its existence is not yet proven.
Answer

The name Naz′a�reth possibly means "Sprout-Town", which could indicate it's relative insignificance in comparison with other towns around it. Nazareth was located in the Lower Galilee, in a fairly well populated region, where Jesus was raised from about the age of three, and he lived most of his earthly life. (Lu 2:51,�52; Mt 13:54-56) Both Joseph and Mary were residents of Nazareth when Gabriel announced the approaching birth of Jesus. (Lu 1:26,�27; 2:4,�39) Later, after their return from Egypt, they took up residence in Nazareth again.�Mt 2:19-23; Lu 2:39.
Most scholars identify Nazareth with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee. If this view is correct, Nazareth was situated in the low mountains just north of the Valley of Jezreel and approximately halfway between the south tip of the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Coast. It was in a mountain basin with hills rising 120 to 150 m (400 to 500 ft) above it. The area was well populated, with a number of cities and towns near Nazareth. Also, it is estimated that one could walk from Nazareth to Ptolemais on the Mediterranean Coast in seven hours, to Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee in five hours, and to Jerusalem in three days.

[Ricky Jimenez]

The Nazareth question along with much more is discussed in a 2012
book, "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman, a very prolific writer on
Jesus and early Christianity and "Distinguished Professor of Religious
Studies" at the U of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill. Ehrman describes
himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings. His take is that
Nazareth did exist (pgs. 191-197). The Israel Antiquity Authority has
excavated there and has found at least one house dated to Jesus' time
on the hill slopes at where Nazareth was supposed to have been along
with tombs in burial caves. Their view is that it was "an
out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four
acres...populated by Jews of modest means."

To bring this closer to the purpose of this NG, Ehrman believes that
Albert Schweitzer got it mostly right in his "Quest of the Historical
Jesus" of 1906 although the details there are not what the consensus
of NT scholars now believe. How are Schweitzer's organ recordings
valued today? Any recommendations?

[Mark S]

On Dec 26, 7:08 am, Ricky Jimenez <ricky...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:59:59 -0500, t <t...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Mark S wrote:
>
> >> Read any critical analysis of this and you'll hear all kinds of
> >> excuses at lame explanations for how the town of Nazareth must have
> >> existed when Jesus was alive. It didn't.
>
> >But how can you say there was not a different place, called Nazareth at
> >the time locally, which then was abandoned, and the new Nazareth which
> >came centuries later had no connection with the Nazareth of Christ?  I
> >mean, what evidence is there that no such place existed in 4 AD or
> >whenever?
>
> The Nazareth question along with much more is discussed in a 2012
> book, "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman, a very prolific writer on
> Jesus and early Christianity and "Distinguished Professor of Religious
> Studies" at the U of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill.  Ehrman describes
> himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings.  His take is that
> Nazareth did exist (pgs. 191-197).  The Israel Antiquity Authority has
> excavated there and has found at least one house dated to Jesus' time
> on the hill slopes at where Nazareth was supposed to have been along
> with tombs in burial caves.  Their view is that it was "an
> out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four
> acres...populated by Jews of modest means."

To answer you and John Gavin in one reply - again, the Bible calls
Nazareth a "city." Calling it an "out-of-the-way hamlet" is an old
apologist's trick to ignore what the Bible actually says and to
redefine the city of Nazareth into a town or hamlet or whatever to
turn the glaring lack of evidence for a city (" found at least one
house dated to Jesus' time") into "proof" that a Nazareth did exist,
but that it was just a tiny little nothing of a place. The door opened
to speculation, the apologists go whole hog and add to their
imaginings ("it was "an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a
patch of about four acres...populated by Jews of modest means.")

Notice that the same tactic is used in John's Wikipedia citation:

"Nazareth, according to tradition, was a poor town, and one of less
than great repute."

Within the first sentence, we've redefined Nazareth from the city of
the Bible to a "town," and not only a town, but a "poor town." Yet,
this poor town was well off enough - according to the Bible - to have
it's own synagogue.

"The Bible states that people asked, "can anything good come out of
Nazareth?" Perhaps Biblical Nazareth was a small gathering of homes,
but not an officially-recognized town."

We now add to the pure speculation that Nazareth was not the "city" as
defined by the Bible, shrinking it as we go! It's now a "small
gathering of houses (!!!)", and not even an "officially recognized
TOWN." Except that the Bible says it was a city, a city that was
apparently large enough and well known enough that making derogatory
references to it would instantly import some meaning to people.

"Lack of evidence is no evidence at all. We cannot assume that the
lack of archaeological evidence for an ancient city or town called
Nazareth proves that the city/town did not exist, only that its
existence is not yet proven."

Again with the "city'/town" dodge. It does get tiring.

As far as the lack of evidence, that might carry some weight had
archeological digs not already have shown the ability of scientists to
uncover seemingly insignificant proof of human habitation throughout
the Holy Land. Your example of them unearthing but a SINGLE HOME in
what is supposedly Nazareth shows that archeologists have an uncanny
ability to find things that have been lost for centuries. One would
think that it would be child's play to unearth an entire city,
especially if that city did exist at one point - as Nazareth
supposedly did according to the NT - and if one was looking in the
right spot.

But that's not what's happened in searching for the CITY of Nazareth.

Sometimes lack of evidence IS proof that there is no evidence to be
found.

Then, there's the other problem about Nazareth that I mentioned above
- the fact that there is no precipice in or around Nazareth from
whence the townies could have cast Jesus down to kill him, as reported
in the Bible. How do the apologists handle that one? Simple - expand
the Bible's precipice to include "the hill slopes at where Nazareth
was supposed to have been," as if Jesus rolling down a slope would
have been enough to kill him.

So, let's recap:

Problem 1: The Bible calls Nazareth a city, but there's no evidence of
a city, so redefine the city down to a town, hamlet, 50-person nomadic
enclave, cub scout tent or whatever to get around the fact that
there's no city to be found.

Problem 2: The Bible says Jesus was in danger of being thrown from a
precipice, but there are no precipices in the area, so use words like
hill & slope to get in the ballpark of a word like precipice, and hope
no one notices what you're doing.

[Gerard]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:

"Nice" way to get through the christmas days.

[O]

In article
<bcbf7499-7b04-429e...@po6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

I won't settle for anything less than a non-photoshopped long form
birth certificate from Hawaii. Unless you're asserting that Jesus was
born in Kenya?

-Owen, I suppose this makes Mark a Bible Birther.

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:02:37 PM UTC+2, Mark S wrote:

> ... the Bible calls
> Nazareth a "city."

re Matthew 2:23

I suppose Gr. "polis" could also mean something like "community":

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpo%2Flis

Jerome in his translation used the Latin word "civitas"
--
Roland van Gaalen
Cape Town

[Mark S]

On Dec 26, 10:50 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bcbf7499-7b04-429e-bd56-71e85e46d...@po6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

It's not me asserting that the Bible is the inerrant word of god.
That's the trope of the religionists. It's all literal...until being
literal comes up a cropper. At that point, it's all figurative (which
also happens to be another definition of "trope").

You know the definition of a metaphor? That's a one-time, written-in-
stone Biblical "fact" that has been proven to be not true.

As far as where Jesus was born - he wasn't born. Wasn't a real person.
He's an archetype who has much in common with many other resurrected
gods who populated the mythology of the ancient Mediterranean. You do
know that many early Christians - the Essenes, even St Paul -
considered Jesus to be entirely a spiritual being. Not for them the
corporeal Jesus! But then, someone figured out that the religion would
have a better chance of catching on if was alleged that Jesus was a
real person who suffer real pain to redeem humanity. People would have
something to identify with. NASA figured out the same thing when they
decided to lose the chimps and put men in their space ships.

The Bible is an endlessly fascinating work of fiction, especially when
it intertwines with reality, evidence and lack of evidence. We miss
the real value of the Bible when we ignore or lose sight of how it
fits into the continuum of the gods man has invented for himself over
the years, and we treat the Bible as some sort of historic document
that is relaying the real lives of real people. That's an extremely
limited way of looking at the Bible, which has as its unfortunate
foundation the raising of obvious fantasy into the realm of the
factual.

[Mark S]

On Dec 26, 10:50 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
>

> -Owen, I suppose this makes Mark a Bible Birther.

Since when does one have to believe that myths are real to be allowed
to have an interest in them?

The Bible is a book of myths, just like other books and tales that are
myths. I don't see anyone condemning people for studying any of the
world's myths because they don't first aver that the myths are
actually factual. Are we not allowed to listen to or comment on
Wagner's Ring if we don't first stipulate that the story he set is
based on real people and real events?

Of course not.

So why apply a different standard when the myths are found in the
Bible?

[O]

In article
<1d44fd86-055f-425a...@ui9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Hey, go for it! They only taught me the Bible in Parochial school, you
obviously did the extra-biblical research that I've never done.

But you're still a Bible Birther. :-)

-Owen, not of Nazareth.

[JohnGavin]

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 4:19:57 PM UTC-5, Mark S wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:50 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -Owen, I suppose this makes Mark a Bible Birther.
>
>
>
> Since when does one have to believe that myths are real to be allowed
>
> to have an interest in them?
>
>
>
> The Bible is a book of myths, just like other books and tales that are
>
> myths.

I say this not in the spirit of arguing nor as a challenge, but the great scriptures of the world are largely symbolic lessons in the deepest truths (and I include the Bible, the Sermon on the Mount, the Aphorisms of Patanjali, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads and the Vedas). Particularly when a deeply penetrating commentary is used (at least for me), there is no doubt that great truths are revealed in these writings. I give Gita classes several times a year, and a single verse can serve as a basis for an entire discussion, so rich is its import. They have survived for millennia for a very good reason.

I place far more import in their symbolic meaning than literal meanings. The Nazareth example is a perfect one. Whether those passages are in Hebrew or Aramaic, one could ask whether "city" is an accurate translation, or whether city meant something quite different 2K years ago, or whether, as Wiki says "sprout city" is a more accurate translation, but I don't care about those things. Its the import that matters.

[Mark S]

On Dec 26, 3:16 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I place far more import in their symbolic meaning than literal meanings.  The Nazareth example is a perfect one.  Whether those passages are in Hebrew or Aramaic, one could ask whether "city" is an accurate translation, or whether city meant something quite different 2K years ago, or whether, as Wiki says "sprout city" is a more accurate translation, but I don't care about those things.  Its the import that matters.<

The passages we're discussing from the Bible's NT are, of course,
written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. We know this - thanks to
those Biblical scholars - from the fact that the 4 Gospel writers made
tons of mistakes in their referencing of the OT, with many of those
mistakes - like the unfounded dogma of the virgin birth of Jesus -
occurring due to a faulty translation of the Hebrew into the Greek of
the Septuagint.

From this, we know that the Gospel writers depended on the Greek
Septuagint - not Hebrew sources - as the basis for their references to
the OT, which could lead one to believe that they perhaps weren't
fluent in Hebrew, or that they simply used the Septuagint as that was
the text used by the "learned" people of society that had mastered
Greek as a second language. In any case, tey simply copied the
mistakes from the Septuagint into their NT, while creating a bunch of
their own mistakes along the way.

In addition, we know that Mark was the first Gospel written, followed
probably by Luke and then Matthew, which are both based on Mark's
Gospel and the Q. That's why the basic story is the same across the
gospels. The only difference are the result of various gospel writers
crafting their messages for their particular audience.

We also need to realize that the people who wrote both the OT and the
NT had no real knowledge of the work of others writing scripture. It's
not like they got together and compared notes so the story had
consistency. None of them ever worried about how their text would
stand up against any other text out there. Why would they? Most people
in those days never traveled more than 25 miles from their homes on
the lifetime. Why imagine that a scroll you're writing would even make
it to Jerusalem, let alone the entire world?

It's fine that you choose to look at these stories as being symbolic
and not literal. But that begs the obvious question: if Jesus' entire
life story is that of a symbolic (fictional) life lived and not a
literal life lived, then whence salvation through his death, which
never happened if he never really lived?

Here's the root problem with you and other Christians pulling on the
symbolic loose thread of the Biblical narrative garment: eventually,
you get to the point where the entire garment is unravelling, and you
are forced to either act like the church and draw arbitrary lines
about where reality ends (ie: Jesus DID live, just like the Bible
says, trust us!), and where symbolism begins (ie: but he didn't really
live in a city like the Bible says, it was more of a hamlet, if that.
Trust us again!), or you're forced to draw the line elsewhere and
argue your own personal beliefs, which will - by necessity - be based
on your own cherry-picked belief about what's literal and what's
symbolic.

Perhaps that's why there are currently around 33,000 sects of
Christianity active in the world today - there's more flavors than
Baskin Robbins on steroids! If you don't like the RCC version of
Christianity, try the Lutherans...or the Methodists...or the Branch
Davidians...or whoever, until you kind a "truth" that fits with your
own existing ideas of what constitutes being a good person
(Christian).

There's actually a very simple solution to get around falling into
this trap, and that is to abandon the typical religionist's position
that what's important is to prove HOW what the Bible says is true, and
to start from the point where all journeys for the truth begin, ie: to
first decide IF something is true before pursuing the how and why of
that truth.

But that will never happen, because it would signal the death of
religion, and in quick order.

[Mark DeBellis]

On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's not me asserting that the Bible is the inerrant word of god.
> That's the trope of the religionists. It's all literal...until being
> literal comes up a cropper. At that point, it's all figurative (which
> also happens to be another definition of "trope").
>
> You know the definition of a metaphor? That's a one-time, written-in-
> stone Biblical "fact" that has been proven to be not true.
>
> As far as where Jesus was born - he wasn't born. Wasn't a real person.
> He's an archetype

I don't get that. Do we know that the name 'Jesus' doesn't refer to a
real person, as per something like the causal theory of names?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_theory_of_reference#Kripke.27s_causal_account_of_names

Mark

[t]

On 12.26.12 16:19, Mark S wrote:

Mark, are you informed enough of what "believing" scholars think on
these points to argue their point of view against your own?

[Mark S]

> real person, as per something like the causal theory of names?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_theory_of_reference#Kripke.27s_ca...
>
> Mark

In the same way that saying the name "Rhett" has most people supplying
the surname of "Butler." Some people will think he was an historic
figure, just because they don't know any better. In the case of Jesus,
people have been saying for centuries that he really existed, and that
has the effect clouding the fiction from whence that name casually
made its way into common discourse. People think he was real because
they've never heard that he wasn't.

As far as the Jesus of the Bible being an archetype, there are any
number of excellent books out there that deal with this line of
thought. Albert Schweitzer's book is as a good starting place as any.
Beyond that, I'd recommend "Drudgery Divine " by Jonathan Smith, an
overview of scholarship efforts dealing with the pagan origins of
Christ, from the 1400s through today; "The End of Biblical Studies" by
Hector Avalos; and a real oldie, "The Life of Jesus Critically
Examined" by David Strauss.

If you don't want to bother buying and reading books, there are some
resources on the web that are valuable. One of the easiest to navigate
- along with being easy to read - is POCM, or Pagan Origins of the
Christ Myth (http://www.pocm.info/). This site gathers a lot of
writings by a lot of authors and tries to put them into an easily
readable form. I think it does so rather successfully. It is most
valuable in that it dispels the popular myths of the 19th century that
a religious archetype like Jesus is nothing more than a fully lifted
rehash of the god Mithras. He's not. It's more complicated and more
simple than that.

Gotta go.

[Mark S]

You've identified the problem: "believing" scholars. Such scholars
aren't concerned with *whether* something written in the Bible is
true, they're concerned about *how* something in the Bible supports
their belief.

[M forever]

There's also a lot of food for thought and discussion in Grimm's fairy
tales. Does that mean that Hänsel and Gretel are some kind of saints?

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Mark S wrote:

> It's fine that you choose to look at these stories as being symbolic
> and not literal. But that begs the obvious question: if Jesus' entire
> life story is that of a symbolic (fictional) life lived and not a
> literal life lived, then whence salvation through his death, which
> never happened if he never really lived?

There is a difference between Jesus' life and the story of Jesus' life. The
latter has proven to be more relevant than the former.

The story of Jesus' life tells us that the original bond between god and man
has been renewed and that one should live accordingly. History shows that
many believed - and many still believe - that this is important news for
them.

Biblical archeology, papyrology, etc. - interesting as they may be - have no
impact at all on the importance of this message. Why should it? If Delphi
had never existed, would that make the saying 'Know thyself' less valid?

Henk

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Mark S wrote:

> It's fine that you choose to look at these stories as being symbolic
> and not literal. But that begs the obvious question: if Jesus' entire
> life story is that of a symbolic (fictional) life lived and not a
> literal life lived, then whence salvation through his death, which
> never happened if he never really lived?

There is a difference between Jesus' life and the story of Jesus' life. The
latter has proven to be more relevant than the former.

The story of Jesus' life tells us that the original bond between god and man
has been renewed and that one should live accordingly. History shows that
many believed - and many still believe - that this is important news for
them.

Biblical archeology, papyrology, etc. - interesting as they may be - have no

bearing on the importance of this message.
If Delphi had never existed, would that make the phrase 'Know thyself' less
important?

Henk

[M forever]

That's a very general piece of wisdom, nothing which specifically
requires that you somehow believe in Delphi. On the contrary, it
invites you to think about yourself. That has nothing to do with the
belief that in the life of Jesus the "bond between god and man" has
somehow been renewed,

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

M forever wrote:

> That's a very general piece of wisdom, nothing which specifically
> requires that you somehow believe in Delphi. On the contrary, it
> invites you to think about yourself. That has nothing to do with the
> belief that in the life of Jesus the "bond between god and man" has
> somehow been renewed,

What's relevant is the fact that millions still believe in the phrase's
wisdom although we may have doubts about its historical origin (Platon
refers to Thales, Pittacus, Bias, Solon, Cleobulus, Myson, and/or Chilon).
In the same way millions believe that the bond between god and man has been
renewed in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about the
historical origins of this story.

Henk

[M forever]

Throughout history, countless millions of people have also believed
that their tribe or nation or race or however they chose to define
their group identity made them superior to others so they were
justified to go off and kill, enslave, colonize and exploit other
groups of people. Just because a lot of people think they believe
something, that doesn't make it true or right. And of course, many
people have also believed that the whole Christian thing is totally
wrong but their own religion is completely right.
It's all really just part of that same primitive tribal mindset.

"Millions believe that the bond between god and man has been renewed

in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about the historical

origins of this story" after centuries of the main proponents of that
religion insisting that it's all really true just means that they have
a hard time letting go of myths which are deeply ingrained in the
culture they happened to be born in, even though now we have a much
more complete picture. If the life of Jesus allegedly re-affirmed the
bond between "god and man" but it didn't really happen, then that bond
didn't get re-affirmed either, no matter how you twist the words
"life" and "story".

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

M forever wrote:
> On Dec 27, 11:48 am, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> M forever wrote:
>>> That's a very general piece of wisdom, nothing which specifically
>>> requires that you somehow believe in Delphi. On the contrary, it
>>> invites you to think about yourself. That has nothing to do with the
>>> belief that in the life of Jesus the "bond between god and man" has
>>> somehow been renewed,
>>
>> What's relevant is the fact that millions still believe in the
>> phrase's wisdom although we may have doubts about its historical
>> origin (Platon refers to Thales, Pittacus, Bias, Solon, Cleobulus,
>> Myson, and/or Chilon). In the same way millions believe that the
>> bond between god and man has been renewed in the life of Jesus
>> although there may be doubts about the historical origins of this
>> story.
>
> Throughout history, countless millions of people have also believed
> that their tribe or nation or race or however they chose to define
> their group identity made them superior to others so they were
> justified to go off and kill, enslave, colonize and exploit other
> groups of people. Just because a lot of people think they believe
> something, that doesn't make it true or right. And of course, many
> people have also believed that the whole Christian thing is totally
> wrong but their own religion is completely right.
> It's all really just part of that same primitive tribal mindset.

Yes. It has all become just a part of a certain collective mindset. When the
collective mindset changes one may expect a change in what it means to
believe for example that the bond between god and man has been renewed - or
what it means to know oneself. In this sense the really great stories remain
an actual part of the history of mankind.

> "Millions believe that the bond between god and man has been renewed
> in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about the historical
> origins of this story" after centuries of the main proponents of that
> religion insisting that it's all really true just means that they have
> a hard time letting go of myths which are deeply ingrained in the
> culture they happened to be born in, even though now we have a much
> more complete picture. If the life of Jesus allegedly re-affirmed the
> bond between "god and man" but it didn't really happen, then that bond
> didn't get re-affirmed either, no matter how you twist the words
> "life" and "story".

It doesn't matter whether something 'really' happened. We aren't meant to
live by facts. In the 'grand scheme of things' the re-affirmation of the
bond between god and man has become a historical fact by the fact that
millions believe it to happen [sic!] day in and day out. You may not notice
anything special but millions do ...

Henk

[Mark S]

On Dec 27, 9:49 am, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > "Millions believe that the bond between god and man has been renewed
> > in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about the historical
> > origins of this story"
>

> It doesn't matter whether something 'really' happened. We aren't meant to
> live by facts. In the 'grand scheme of things' the re-affirmation of the
> bond between god and man has become a historical fact by the fact that
> millions believe it to happen [sic!] day in and day out. You may not notice
> anything special but millions do ...

Ah, the argument from authority. If enough people believe it, it must
be true!

Millions believed that Saddam Hussein had WsMD, too, even though there
were serious doubts at the time that he did, including his own
contentions that he didn't. Turned out Saddam was telling the truth
while Junior Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and the rest were the ones
telling the lies.

Sometimes, it really does matter whether one is dealing with facts or
fantasies. Ask the families of the tens of thousands of Iraqis and
thousands of soldiers whose children lie dead thanks to Bushco pushing
their fantasies as realities.

[M forever]

Indeed, and a very nasty and bloody history, too. And you know what
happens if history is not understood. It repeats itself.

> > "Millions believe that the bond between god and man has been renewed
> > in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about the historical
> > origins of this story" after centuries of the main proponents of that
> > religion insisting that it's all really true just means that they have
> > a hard time letting go of myths which are deeply ingrained in the
> > culture they happened to be born in, even though now we have a much
> > more complete picture. If the life of Jesus allegedly re-affirmed the
> > bond between "god and man" but it didn't really happen, then that bond
> > didn't get re-affirmed either, no matter how you twist the words
> > "life" and "story".
>
> It doesn't matter whether something 'really' happened. We aren't meant to
> live by facts. In the 'grand scheme of things' the re-affirmation of the
> bond between god and man has become a historical fact by the fact that
> millions believe it to happen [sic!] day in and day out. You may not notice
> anything special but millions do ...

Yes, right, and millions of people believed that other people were
racially inferior to themselves, or had the wrong ideas about the bond
between god and man, so they were justified in just killing them off.
That's a historical fact, too. You are correct in saying that it is a
historical fact that with the advent of Christianity, a new spectrum
of ideas about the relationship between god and man came into being,
and many people believed in some of those new doctrines. That still
doesn't make them "right" and if they are based on the life story or
the story of the life of an alleged miracle man which never happened,
then all those ideas were simply based on nothing.

It would be better for you if you started to live by facts. Illusions
and delusions lead to nothing but chaos and slaughter. You may not
realize it, but with your "we believe it so that makes it right"
mindset you are very similar to those who had a "those people are
racially inferior" or "these people believe in the wrong god" kind of
mindset which leads to "therefore it is justified to kill them".

Even though you may not want to realize that and you will probably
claim that your own attitude is entirely spiritual and harmless, it is
not. Your last sentence betrays that you think you are something
special, too. You can't really explain it. But you believe in that.
You don't really believe in "god" anyway. You just believe in the idea
that you know something about "god" that others don't.

[Mark S]

On Dec 27, 9:49 am, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:

> In the 'grand scheme of things' the re-affirmation of the
> bond between god and man has become a historical fact by the fact that
> millions believe it to happen [sic!] day in and day out. You may not notice
> anything special but millions do ...

You probably don't realize it, but your something "special" historical
fact is nothing more than self-importance posing as humility.

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Mark S wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:49 am, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>> "Millions believe that the bond between god and man has been renewed
>>> in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about the
>>> historical origins of this story"
>>
>> It doesn't matter whether something 'really' happened. We aren't
>> meant to live by facts. In the 'grand scheme of things' the
>> re-affirmation of the bond between god and man has become a
>> historical fact by the fact that millions believe it to happen
>> [sic!] day in and day out. You may not notice anything special but
>> millions do ...

> Ah, the argument from authority. If enough people believe it, it must
> be true!

Hmmm. I finally come up with some facts and you complain that it's an ad
auctoritatem ...

> Millions believed that Saddam Hussein had WsMD, too, even though there
> were serious doubts at the time that he did, including his own
> contentions that he didn't. Turned out Saddam was telling the truth
> while Junior Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and the rest were the ones
> telling the lies.

> Sometimes, it really does matter whether one is dealing with facts or
> fantasies. Ask the families of the tens of thousands of Iraqis and
> thousands of soldiers whose children lie dead thanks to Bushco pushing
> their fantasies as realities.

Yes, it sometimes does. That's why we have science - and even science sees
the facts in an ever new light.

Henk

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

M forever wrote:

> Yes, right, and millions of people believed that other people were
> racially inferior to themselves, or had the wrong ideas about the bond
> between god and man, so they were justified in just killing them off.
> That's a historical fact, too. You are correct in saying that it is a
> historical fact that with the advent of Christianity, a new spectrum
> of ideas about the relationship between god and man came into being,
> and many people believed in some of those new doctrines. That still
> doesn't make them "right" and if they are based on the life story or
> the story of the life of an alleged miracle man which never happened,
> then all those ideas were simply based on nothing.

Yes. But that is in itself no problem. The universe is based on nothing and
stil functions.

> It would be better for you if you started to live by facts. Illusions
> and delusions lead to nothing but chaos and slaughter. You may not
> realize it, but with your "we believe it so that makes it right"
> mindset you are very similar to those who had a "those people are
> racially inferior" or "these people believe in the wrong god" kind of
> mindset which leads to "therefore it is justified to kill them".

It may be useful to you to divide the world in facts (good) and stories
(bad). It's an orderly world. I don't live in such a world.

> Even though you may not want to realize that and you will probably
> claim that your own attitude is entirely spiritual and harmless, it is
> not. Your last sentence betrays that you think you are something
> special, too. You can't really explain it. But you believe in that.
> You don't really believe in "god" anyway. You just believe in the idea
> that you know something about "god" that others don't.

LOL! You make an excellent prophet of doom. Michael! The role suits you -
you even excell in it. Write a book. You could become the Spengler of the
XXIst century.

Henk

[Kip Williams]

HvT wrote, On 12/27/12 4:04 PM:

> Mark S wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 9:49 am, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Millions believe that the bond between god and man has been renewed
>>>> in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about the
>>>> historical origins of this story"
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter whether something 'really' happened. We aren't
>>> meant to live by facts. In the 'grand scheme of things' the
>>> re-affirmation of the bond between god and man has become a
>>> historical fact by the fact that millions believe it to happen
>>> [sic!] day in and day out. You may not notice anything special but
>>> millions do ...
>
>> Ah, the argument from authority. If enough people believe it, it must
>> be true!
>
> Hmmm. I finally come up with some facts and you complain that it's an ad
> auctoritatem ...

Is that quoted part up there where the facts are? I see where you say
it's widely believed, but that seems more like the bandwagon fallacy
than a relevant fact.

I just took Intro to Religion last semester, and was conversant with
ineffability and numinosity, but it's already starting to fade. I have
more sympathy for religion than I did before the class, though. If
they'd stop trying to interpose themselves between people and reality, I
probably wouldn't mind religious leaders at all.


Kip W

[M forever]

On Dec 27, 4:18 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
> M forever wrote:
> > Yes, right, and millions of people believed that other people were
> > racially inferior to themselves, or had the wrong ideas about the bond
> > between god and man, so they were justified in just killing them off.
> > That's a historical fact, too. You are correct in saying that it is a
> > historical fact that with the advent of Christianity, a new spectrum
> > of ideas about the relationship between god and man came into being,
> > and many people believed in some of those new doctrines. That still
> > doesn't make them "right" and if they are based on the life story or
> > the story of the life of an alleged miracle man which never happened,
> > then all those ideas were simply based on nothing.
>
> Yes. But that is in itself no problem. The universe is based on nothing and
> stil functions.
>
> > It would be better for you if you started to live by facts. Illusions
> > and delusions lead to nothing but chaos and slaughter. You may not
> > realize it, but with your "we believe it so that makes it right"
> > mindset you are very similar to those who had a "those people are
> > racially inferior" or "these people believe in the wrong god" kind of
> > mindset which leads to "therefore it is justified to kill them".
>
> It may be useful to you to divide the world in facts (good) and stories
> (bad). It's an orderly world. I don't live in such a world.

I don't think stories are bad. Total nonsense. But I think that made
up stories are still made up stories. You do live in a very simple
world. One which needs a supreme deity for it to somehow make sense,
and for man to somehow have a bond with that supreme power.

> > Even though you may not want to realize that and you will probably
> > claim that your own attitude is entirely spiritual and harmless, it is
> > not. Your last sentence betrays that you think you are something
> > special, too. You can't really explain it. But you believe in that.
> > You don't really believe in "god" anyway. You just believe in the idea
> > that you know something about "god" that others don't.
>
> LOL! You make an excellent prophet of doom. Michael! The role suits you -
> you even excell in it. Write a book. You could become the Spengler of the
> XXIst century.

No idea who that is. It doesn't matter anyway. I am not a "prophet of
doom". I am just telling you that you delude yourself to be someone
who is part of a group which has special insights into the nature of
the "eternal" - very feebly based on some long discredited stories.
Which you now say are valid no matter if they are true or not. Yet for
many centuries, countless people have died - some willingly, some
unwillingly - for the conviction that they are true and proof of
divine intervention on earth - not just some nice ideas about the
relationship between god and man.

[M forever]

But how could they be religious leaders without doing that?

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Kip Williams wrote:

>>>>> "Millions believe that the bond between god and man has been
>>>>> renewed in the life of Jesus although there may be doubts about
>>>>> the historical origins of this story"

> Is that quoted part up there where the facts are? I see where you say
> it's widely believed, but that seems more like the bandwagon fallacy
> than a relevant fact.

Do you deny that there are millions of Christians? Or do you deny that they
believe that in Jesus' live the bond between god and man has been renewed?
If you deny the one or the other, why all the fuss? There is no sense in
attacking not-believed beliefs.

> I just took Intro to Religion last semester, and was conversant with
> ineffability and numinosity, but it's already starting to fade. I have
> more sympathy for religion than I did before the class, though. If
> they'd stop trying to interpose themselves between people and
> reality, I probably wouldn't mind religious leaders at all.

<g> I know you are one of the good guys on RMCR. My trust in religious
leaders is non-existent. The story goes that in the live of Jesus the bond
between god and man was renewed/restored/re-affirmed. Religious leaders have
made it a point to place themselves between god and man, to regulate the
relation according to their interests. Read the story of the Great
Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov.

Henk

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

M forever wrote:

>> LOL! You make an excellent prophet of doom. Michael! The role suits
>> you - you even excell in it. Write a book. You could become the
>> Spengler of the XXIst century.
>
> No idea who that is. It doesn't matter anyway. I am not a "prophet of
> doom". I am just telling you that you delude yourself to be someone
> who is part of a group which has special insights into the nature of
> the "eternal" - very feebly based on some long discredited stories.
> Which you now say are valid no matter if they are true or not. Yet for
> many centuries, countless people have died - some willingly, some
> unwillingly - for the conviction that they are true and proof of
> divine intervention on earth - not just some nice ideas about the
> relationship between god and man.

I even go one step further, the great stories of western (and eastern)
culture are true in the sense that they have become part of our lives. The
way we look at our world is determined by these stories. We are even willing
to die for the story that means most to us, as you point out. Stories are
much more than nice ideas. Man is not a rational but mythological animal and
there are always those who know how to manipulate this.

Henk

[laraine]

But that didn't seem too hard to figure
out... I mean there was always a small
possibility that there were WsMD, but
it didn't seem likely.

But now all of the supposedly terrifically
scientific members of this group have
decided that not only was Jesus not
divine, which is certainly controversial,
but that he didn't even exist as a person.
And they seem almost 100% certain of it.

..All in spite of the fact that it's quite
plausible that someone like him could
have existed and preached at that time.

Doesn't seem like a very scientific
conclusion to me.

Will you now assert that the Buddha
didn't exist, that Mohammed didn't
exist, etc. I'll bet someone has asserted
it.

C..