WEEKLY FAQ; WELCOME TO ALT.ATHEISM - NEWSGROUP, LIST & WEB INFORMATION
John P. Boatwright
sjb wrote:
> "Michelle Malkin" <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:v6igds8bthu4khq8i...@4ax.com...
>
> > 1. All are welcome in this newsgroup whether they are
> > atheist or not.
>
> This FAQ is pathetic - the other one was way better than this and it helped
> me to decide to not have *anything* to do with this newsgroup.
Ya, BT's FAQ's actually explained it all in detail, sometimes a
bit too technical and such, but overall, right to the point.
But when you read through M&M's FAQ's, you see that the M&M
person wasn't so complete, and left several issues unresolved,
for instance:
The #9 topic...
M&M said NOTHING about it, left it ... BLANK.
Why?
Well, BT answered it directly and his answer says what M&M
didn't want to mention. That #9 topic demands that some posting
to the newsgroup would be "cataloged" or said to be inferior in
some manner, that they would list said "defective" individuals.
M&M doesn't want people to know this since it would detract
from her being a social worker... someone who is supposed to
help the general public...
To be listed as twits???
ha ha ha...
So M&M freezes up and doesn't mention it.
But BT has no problem in openly stating the honest facts about it.
Which is exactly what people expect in a FAQ sheet.
> God's love be with you all.
That would be best.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Dan Fake
>
>
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Humans invented god and manufactured a jesus-like son of god
character (or an approximation thereof), across cultures around
the globe.
The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?
Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
by Earl J. Doherty
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405
From the Back Cover
Why are the events of the Gospel story, and its central
character Jesus of Nazareth, not found in the New Testament
epistles?
Why does Paul's divine Christ seem to have no connection
to the Gospel Jesus, but closely resembles the many pagan
savior gods of the time who lived only in myth?
Why, given the spread of Christianity across the Roman
Empire in the first century, did only one Christian community
compose a story of Jesus' life and death-the Gospel of
Mark-while every other Gospel simply copied and reworked
the first one?
Why is every detail in the Gospel story of Jesus' trial and
crucifixion drawn from passages in the Old Testament?
The answer to these and other questions surrounding the
New Testament will come as a shock to those who imagine
that the origins of Christianity and the figure of Jesus are
securely represented by Christian tradition and the Gospels.
With the arrival of the third millennium, the time has come
to face the stunning realization that for the last 1900 years,
Christianity has revered a founder and icon of the faith who
probably never existed.
The Other Jesus (Newsweek - March 27, 2000)
http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/so/a17551-2000mar19.htm
Excerpt: "To Christians, Jesus is the Son of God. But the
world's other great religions have their own visions of a
legendary figure. ... the lack of extra-Biblical evidence for
the existence of Jesus has led more than one critic to
conclude that he is a Christian fiction created by the early
church. ... Christian persecution of the Jews made dialogue
about Jesus impossible in the Middle Ages ...
What Muslims believe about Jesus comes from the
Qur'an—not the New Testament, which they consider
tainted by human error. They also draw upon their own
oral traditions ... the infant Jesus announces that he is
God's prophet, though not God's son, since Allah is
"above having a son" according to the Qur'an. ...
in India there is a strong tradition that the teenage Jesus
slipped away from his parents, journeyed across Southeast
Asia learning yogic meditation and returned home to become
a guru to the Jews ... To Hindus, India is the Holy Land, its
sacred mountains and rivers enlivened by more than 300,000
local deities. It is only natural, then, that Jesus would come
to India to learn the secrets of unlocking his own inherent
divinity. ...
The life stories of Jesus and the Buddha are strikingly similar ...
when Buddhists encounter Christianity they depersonalize
the Jesus who walked this earth and transform him into a
figure more like Buddha. ... He believed in sin, which is not
a Buddhist concept. Jesus did not teach compassion as
a way of removing bad karma, nor did he see life as a cycle
of death and rebirth. In short, says the Dalai Lama, trying
to meld Jesus into Buddha "is like putting a yak's head on
a sheep's body." It doesn't work. ...
Details from a post made in alt.atheism by another
writer (a few months ago)...
- - -
X'ians have laid claim to the mention of Jesus in
Josephus' "The Antiquities of the Jews" ( 93 a.d.,
XVIII 3,3 63-64), as evidence (of the extra-Biblical
sort) for Jesus' existence. Nothing could be more
erroneous than reliance on such discredited and
flimsy evidence.
In the first place, the mention of Jesus is found in
what is known as the "Testimonium Flavianum
Passage", a clear and obvious interpolation into
Josephus' narrative.
The Passage appearance, in the midst of a story of
misfortunes during a Jewish uprising, totally breaks
the continuity of the story....which then picks up
with the account of how Tiberius expels the Jews
from Rome!
The Passage is NOT found in the earliest copies of
"Antiquities...", and is first 'discovered' by Eusebius
around 300 a.d.. The fact that Eusebius is considered
by some to be "...the first thoroughly dishonest
historian of antiquity.", with "...many falsifications,
suppressions, and fictions which have been proved in
his work..."(Jakob Burkhardt, Leben Konstantins,
1860, pp.307, 335, 347.) should suggest the real
source of the "T.F.P".
Canon Farrar ("Life of Christ", vol. 1, pp.63) points
out that the "Single passage in which Josephus
alludes to (Jesus) is interpolated, if not wholly
spurious.". The Passage has been thoroughly
analyzed and discredited in "Chrestos" (L.
Herrmaun, 1970, Belgium).
The fact remains, there is NOTHING at all, in ALL
of recorded (extra-Biblical) history, to prove that the
Biblical Jesus Christ ever walked the face of the
earth.
Several books that reveal and conclude as much
include:
"Man and His Gods", Homer W. Smith
"The Historical Evidence For Jesus", G.A. Wells
(pp.22-23).
"The Jesus of the Early Christians" and "Did Jesus
Exist?", G.A. Wells
"Jesus: God, Man, or Myth", Herbert Cutner
"The Quest for the Historical Jesus", Albert
Schweitzer
"The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined", David
Friedrich Strauss
"Jesus Outside the Gospels", R. Joseph Hoffman
And scores of others.....
Nope, the phony-baloney (and copy-cat, god- man)
Jesus Christ went totally unrecognized by
contemporary and later historians as a real and
historical entity. In other words folks, the biblical
Jesus Christ never existed outside the myths,
legends, folk-lore, and hero-tales contained in the
Bible.
The second and third 'supposed' Josephus 'mention'
of Jesus is found in "The Jewish War". It is such an
obvious interpolation and clearly spurious late
addition that NO honest historian would accept it as
historic, legitimate, or truthful. It is not found in any
of the surviving Greek manuscripts, but only in the
(so-called) Slavonic version.
Incidentally, the 'Wonders' attributed to Jesus Christ
are"...simply LEGENDS which arose among early
Christians and which were projected backwards,
under the impact of faith, into the life of the
historical Jesus." (Thomas Sheehan, "The First
Coming").
Or as David Friedrich Strauss concluded in 1835;
"...if we would be candid with ourselves, that which
was once sacred history for the Christian believer as,
for the enlightened portion of our contemporaries,
only FABLE".("The Life of Jesus, Critically
Examined").
But to get back to Josephus, NONE of the early
Christian fathers (all familiar with Josephus'
writings) ever refer to any mention of Jesus Christ in
Josephus' writings. These include Justin Martyr,
Photius, Cypian, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Chrysostom. Insofar as ANY
recognition of Jesus Christ by a respected Jewish
historian would have been of significant value (for
example in Justin's dialogue with Trypho the Jew, or
Origen's with Celsus), it is incredible and beyond
belief that such knowledge and evidence for the
historicity of Jesus would have gone unmentioned.
Consider also that Josephus devotes whole pages to
petty robbers and obscure rebels. Nearly 40
Chapters are devoted to a single king! And only a
FEW sentences to The TRUE Messiah, Jesus
Christ...a God-man!!!!!
Not bloody likely!
Also, recall that the later interpolation found in book
20, Chapter 9, names the "...SO-CALLED Christ...",
after earlier (book 18) referring to Jesus as "He
WAS the Christ....". Hey, do you suppose Josephus
changed his mind or lost faith!
His reference to brothers James and Jesus were
common enough names (James is Greek 'Iakobos',
or Hebrew 'Yaakov', or English 'Jacob'). No mention
of them being 'the sons of Joseph', the common
patristic appellation of the times.
Besides, some X'ian denominations will argue to the
death that the Biblical Jesus Christ had no 'brothers'
at all (in spite of the spurious Josephus attestment to
such).[A reasonably balanced popular article on
Josephus' (spurious) mentions of Jesus can be found
in the magazine 'Bible Review', 6-91, for those
desiring more background on the question]
Nope......whichever X'ian ( most likely Eusebius)
later added these spurious references into Josephus'
works, likely comes under the indictment of
Professor Drews who observes "Does anyone
seriously believe, in fact, that Josephus could have
concealed from the Romans...the Messianic
expectations and agitations of his compatriots and
represented them as harmless, in works which were
especially concerned with their strained relations to
their oppressors?".("Witnesses to the Historicity of
Jesus"). The answer's gotta be 'NO'.
In Schweitzer's "Quest for the Historical Jesus" ,
Mr. Albert Schweitzer makes quite clear throughout
that "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward
publicly as the Messiah...NEVER had any
existence. His image has not been destroyed from
WITHOUT, it has FALLEN TO PIECES, cleft and
disintegrated by the concrete historical problems
which come to the surface one after another."
(END)
OTHER MISC. "HISTORICAL" OFFERINGS
Christians usually offer eight (8) possible ancient
writers to whom they'd like to link to their Jesus
Christ for the purpose of providing a 'historic' basis
to the Christian mythology and 'lies'.
So, let's see how far 'off-base' Christians are this
time around:
Cornelius Tacitus(55-130 A.D.)--Annals XV.
44.....It was not until the 15th century A.D. that the
account of "Christus" (Ooooops.... ain't a proper
name!) was 'discovered' by Poggio Bracciolini (the
suspected author of "Annals"!) in Tacitus' writings.
It was then published by Johannes de Spire of
Venice in 1468 A.D. The account was NEVER
referred to prior to the 15th century. The account
only represents a report by Christians about a
"Christus" in about 117-120 A.D. The account
refers to Pilate as 'procurator' (a term not in general
use until perhaps 50 yrs. later. Instead, Pilate would
have been until then known as 'prefect'). The
account mentions a "vast multitude" of Christians in
64 A.D. Rome. Hah!! It also mentions "death by
fire".
Hah!! The Romans did NOT execute by burning.
The account has Christians persecuted for their faith.
Hah!! (They WERE persecuted for their political
aspirations and sedition......Hmmmmmm, that has a
familiar ring, even today!). The account has
Christians being burned in Nero's gardens. Another
account by Tacitus has fire victims being HOUSED
in Nero's gardens! Besides, Nero was in Antium, not
Rome, during the course of the fire (according to
another account by Tacitus!).
The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris)
were called 'Christians' then!!
Nor does Tacitus anywhere refer to Christians....
they were utterly insignificant during his life-time!
Nowhere in the whole New Testament do Christians
even refer to themselves as 'Christians'. Eusebius'
fourth ( and Clement of Alexandria's third) Century
catalog of extra-biblical references to Jesus do NOT
mention Tacitus account at all!! [See G.A. Wells,
"The Historical Evidence for Jesus", p.16, for more
detail].
Lucian of Samosata....His quotation about some
"...man who was crucified in Palestine because he
introduced a new cult..." is too nebulous to be given
serious attention or concern. Even the Bible N.T.
mentions rebels and other Messiahs who paid with
their lives for their political aspirations. No, this 2nd
century satirist and author wrote repeatedly and
scornfully of Christ and the Christians (see, The
Passing Peregrinus, section 25, and Alexander the
False Prophet, section 29). His sources were most
likely Christians.
Seutonius (77-140 A.D.)--Lives of the Caesars,
26.2.....Mention is made of "...Christians, a class of
men given to a new and mischievous superstition."
And in Life of Claudius, 25.4, and Lives of the
Caesars, 26.2, he mentions a "...Chrestus..." being
expelled from Rome with his followers in about the
year 49 A.D.!! Hey, talk about rewriting history!
Actually, Chrestus was a fairly common name
among Roman freedmen. It was also the Roman
name for the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris----see Tacitus
above. Also the Roman historian Vopiscus wrote
"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians...".)
Plinius Secundus, Pliny the Younger (Epistles,
X.96)...It's a mystery why anyone would quote this
writer as evidence for the biblical Jesus Christ.
About the year 113 A.D., he merely mentions his
experiences with a cult that calls itself Christians,
and who worship a Christ as a god, using sacrificial
flesh of their victims. Insofar as Christ's divinity was
not established and canonized until 325 A.D.,
'Christians' would NOT then be worshipping him
anyhow! First published in the 16th century, it was
immediately declared spurious.
Thallus...We don't have Thallus in the original;
Julius Africanus is our source for his writings. We
really don't even know what exactly Thallus said,
and certainly there isn't any warrant in the Africanus
passage that Thallus mentioned Jesus; for all we
knew he mentioned an eclipse. Thallus and his (non-
existent) comments about a 'darkness' somehow
evidence the existence of the biblical Jesus Christ !!
Phlegon: This 1st century historian wrote about
Christ's death and was quoted by Africanus as
saying, that "during the time of Tiberius Caesar an
eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."
This source is also only know through the same
writing of Julius Africanus above. The text of
Africanus in no way implies that Phlegon mentioned
Jesus.
Philopon (De opif. mund. II21) stated: "Phlegon
mentioned the eclipse which took place during the
crucifixion of the Lord Christ, and no other eclipse),
it is clear that he did not know from his sources
about any (similar) eclipse in previous times...and
this is shown by the historical account itself of
Tiberius Caesar."(4/IIB,sect.257f16,c,p.1165.)
A Philopon was quoted in Origen's "Contra
Celsum". It also appears that Philopon is merely
repeating what Phlegon said; he is unquestionably
then NOT an independent source.
Letter of Mara Bar-Seraphon (after 73
A.D.!)....Very weak offering ! The quotation "What
advantage did the Jews gain from executing their
wise king?" is most un-convincing. Jesus Christ was
NEVER the king of the Jews. The Bible reveals as
much!
---
Book references:
Buddha and Christ: Nativity Stories and Indian
Traditions, by Zacharias P. Thundy
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=9004097414
"The infancy narratives of the gospels of Matthew and
Luke appear as a magnificent mosaic of allusions not
only to the Hebrew Bible but also to Buddhist and Hindu
religious traditions. Professor Thundy argues that many
details of the infancy gospels as well as the rest of the
gospels can be clarified by the Buddhist and Hindu
scriptures. In this sense, the gospels are Eastern religious
texts. Buddha and Christ covers the following topics in
order: methodology of study, priority of Indian texts
vis-a-vis Christian gospels, parallels of the birth narratives
of Buddha and Jesus, uniqueness of Indian parallels, the
Gnostic context of the Christian gospels, and contacts
between India and the West in antiquity."
- - -
The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read,
by Tim C. Leedom (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
"Consider this book as a kind of consumer protection
guide to religion, a big step forward toward religious literacy.
Readers will explore myths, origins, fundamentalism,
television ministries, the identical stories of Stellar/Pagan/
Christian beliefs, unfounded doctrines, child abuse, the
Year 2000, and women's rights. It's entertaining and
readable, with a sense of humor reflecting the absurdities
of fundamental religion -- while being inoffensive."
- - -
Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of
Christian Myth, by Burton L. Mack
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186
"I am very selective about books I choose to buy and
display; I prefer those that can really make a difference
or illustrate a method or a new perspective. Mack's book
does an excellent job of debunking and explaining the
Christian myth and deserves widespread reading. If
superstition and myth can be recognized and understood
as such, society will be strengthened and enriched. It is
like the Emperor's New Clothes - someone has pointed
at the Emperor and written an accessible and enlightening
book on the subject."
- - -
The Jesus Legend, by G.A. Wells
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693345
"In this forcefully argued book, Wells presents evidence
for the thesis that the New Testament writings form a
part of a developing legendary tradition concerning the
earthly life of Jesus. Wells engages incisively the works
of the most ardent critics of the mythicist view of Jesus. . .
his critical treatment is nothing less than exemplary."
- - -
One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired
Not One True Christianity, but Many : The Truth
About Christian Origins, by Gregory J. Riley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060667990
"Riley argues that Jesus had a lot in common with familiar
figures like Hercules and Achilles. The classical heroes
claimed a mix of divine-human parentage, usually with
a virgin human mother and a god for a father; they
possessed some remarkable or even miraculous skill;
they had divine enemies and were hated by powerful
humans; they died, often young and violently, as martyrs
for a principle; and their deaths powerfully transformed
other people's lives through emulation. Jesus fits the bill
perfectly, Riley argues, because the Gospel writers had
obtained a classical education, which meant that they
were thoroughly steeped in heroic lore.
Early converts readily embraced Christianity's message,
despite tremendous penalty from a hostile Roman
government, because it captured the heroic formula
that peasants had heard recited and then memorized.
The second half of the book drives home this point
about the source of Christianity's popularity. Riley
demonstrates that it certainly wasn't doctrine that
attracted the masses, since the earliest apostles
couldn't agree on the most basic tenets of the faith.
Dozens of sects arose in different cities, all claiming
to be the religion of the risen Christ (though whether
he had risen in spirit or body was itself a subject of
heated debate). What they could agree on was that
Jesus was a hero and that they, as martyrs for the
faith, could become heroes themselves.
Such faithfulness constituted the religion of Christ into
the fourth century, which witnessed the conversion of
Constantine and the great creedal controversies."
- - -
The Christ Myth (Westminster College-Oxford
Classics in the Study of Religion), by Arthur Drews,
C. Deslisle Burns (Translator), C. Delisle Burns (Translator)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573921904
"Drawing on the late-eighteenth-century French philosophies
and the more contemporary studies of Sir James Frazer and
other cultural anthropologists, Drews argues that no basis
exists for seeking a historical figure behind the Christ myth.
Indeed, if anyone may be called the 'great personality' of
Christianity, that person is Paul, who gave it the strength
to conquer rival religions. Through a comparative study
of ancient religions, Drews shows that Christianity is a
syncretism of various pagan and Jewish beliefs, and that
a strong pre-Christian cult of Jesus as son of God and
messiah existed. The Christ Myth is a sourcebook for
students of religion, historians, and all those interested
in examining the origins of Christianity."
- - -
The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays
(The Freethought Library), by Joseph McCabe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879758333
"One of the most important rationalists of his era takes
readers through the ancient world to show how Christianity
appropriated the ceremonies and myths of paganism to
elaborate the Resurrection story. McCabe cogently
demonstrates that the Jesus of the gospels is not historical
but a curious amalgam constructed after his death, and the
gospels themselves are unreliable as biographies."
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
>[skip]
vicathart
Just out of curiosity why do you continue to post to arcrc. If you think
that we will suddenly see the light and drop our faith then you are naieve
in the extreme. If its debate that you are after then merely posting book
reviews seems pretty pointless.
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ey4C4.14437$mf.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Qur'an-not the New Testament, which they consider
Pied Piper
ridiculous.
Pax
vicathart <vica...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8bb7k5$sl$1...@apple.news.easynet.net...
Dan Fake
>Dan
>
>Just out of curiosity why do you continue to post to arcrc.
To satisfy the need-to-know.
>If you think that we will suddenly see the light and drop our
>faith then you are naieve in the extreme.
No, there are a wide array of belief modalities - to those who
are interested in learning, the information in this post helps
to satisfy that need.
>If its debate that you are after then merely posting book
>reviews seems pretty pointless.
Anyone can offer a debate - Pax has made a comment that
I'll reply to. Thanks for your concern.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> ---
>>
>> [skipped for brevity]
Dan Fake
>The book quoted here is one written with assumptions that are utterly
>ridiculous.
>
>Pax
There were several parts to the post and several book references.
Do you have any specific criticisms?
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>[skipped]
>> ---
>>
>> [skipped for brevity]
Dan Fake
>[snip]
>>> Why are the events of the Gospel story, and its central
>>> character Jesus of Nazareth, not found in the New Testament
>>> epistles?
>
They're not in the epistles - check it out - the whole bible is online.
The events of the Gospel story are not in the epistles. Jesus is
mentioned innumerable times but no mention is made of the
events of the Gospel story and its central character, Jesus of
Nazareth.
epistle
http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE017127.html
In the Bible, a letter of the New Testament. The Pauline Epistles
(ascribed to St. Paul) are Romans, First and Second Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second
Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and
Hebrews. The Catholic, or General, Epistles are James; First and
Second Peter; First, Second, and Third John; and Jude. This
classification is traditional.
>
>>> Why does Paul's divine Christ seem to have no connection
>>> to the Gospel Jesus, but closely resembles the many pagan
>>> savior gods of the time who lived only in myth?
>
>What kind of logic is that supposed to be? The question assumes fact
>not in evidence. If you want to place any credence in your statements,
>it behooves you to put forth examples of your claim. And since your
>statement refers to Paul, those examples should be from everything he
>said, not a phrase here and there.
This is a question from the book. Look at everything Paul wrote and
try to tie it in to the Gospel story and its central character, Jesus of
Nazareth. You can't.
>
>>> Why, given the spread of Christianity across the Roman
>>> Empire in the first century, did only one Christian community
>>> compose a story of Jesus' life and death-the Gospel of
>>> Mark-while every other Gospel simply copied and reworked
>>> the first one?
>
>It is an unsupported theory that the other three Gospels were copied
>from the first. In actuality, only Matthew's Gospel is very similar to
>Mark's. John's deviates in the extreme from the other three.
One composed a story of Jesus' life and death-Mark. Every other
Gospel copied that story of Jesus' life and death. John is different
stylistically but John copied Mark's story of Jesus' life and death.
>
>>> Why is every detail in the Gospel story of Jesus' trial and
>>> crucifixion drawn from passages in the Old Testament?
>
>Another "Have you quit beating your wife?" question. Your
>question has no merit, since the presumption is based on
>a statement that is not true.
It's not my question. It's on the book cover. It begs the question,
was there a real person who matched Old Testament prophecy
-or- did the Gospel writers copy the stuff and attribute it to
a fictitious person.
>
>>> The answer to these and other questions surrounding the
>>> New Testament will come as a shock to those who imagine
>>> that the origins of Christianity and the figure of Jesus are
>>> securely represented by Christian tradition and the Gospels.
>
>As anyone reading this post can plainly see, you have conveniently
>referenced only those works purporting to debunk the existence of
>the man Jesus of Nazareth.
>
>The only references you point to that mention the Jesus of the NT
>are obvious straw men. Maybe you can convince those who don't
>know any better, but yours is a classic example of a premise based
>on a bed of well-known logical fallacies. I suggest that you'd better
>come up with some hard evidence and *true* facts if you want to
>try to prove something.
You're commenting on the back cover of a book. The detailed
argument is contained in the detailed post I made with numerous
historical details and book references and a recent Newsweek
magazine article - as to the merit of the questions, you'd have
to buy the book and read it to ascertain its merit - I've ordered
it and will be more than happy to share the details once I've
read the book.
So long as I'm here, further jesus myth details...
Excerpt from page 137 of "The Book Your Church
Doesn't Want You To Read", edited by Tim C. Leedom.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
get people to buy into their phony myth. Then, check out
the following...
1) Immaculately conceived and born of a spotless virgin,
"who had never known man."
2) The author of, or agent in, the conception, was a spirit
or ghost (of course a Holy Ghost).
3) Threatened in early infancy with death by the ruling tyrant.
4) Parents fled for safety.
5) All young male children under two years of age were slain.
6) Angels and shepherds attended his birth.
7) Occurred in accordance with previous prophecy.
8) Presented at birth with frankincense, myrrh.
9) Worshipped as "the Savior of men."
10) Led a life of humility and practical moral usefulness.
11) Wrought various astounding miracles, such as
healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, casting out
devils, raising the dead to life.
12) Put to death upon the cross (i.e. crucified) between
two thieves.
13) After which he descended to hell, rose from the dead,
and ascended back to heaven "in the sight of all men."
- - - - - - -
And today's mystery guest is .... no, he didn't go by the initials
J.C.
His name was Virishna - as far back as 3,200 years ago, sacred
records were extant and traditions were current, in the East,
regarding the facts listed above. So far as there has been any
borrowing or transfer of materials from one system to another,
Christianity has been the borrower.
- - - - - - -
... from page 138 of the aforementioned book ...
As if that isn't enough to make one wonder, let's go back to
Mexico, circa 2,300 years ago ... what's happening in their
culture? The incarnate God Quexalcote was born of a spotless
virgin, by the name Chimalman, and led a life of the deepest
humility and piety; retired to a wilderness, fasted forty days,
was worshipped as a God, and was finally crucified between
two thieves; after which he was buried and descended into
hell, but rose again the third day.
- - - - - - -
Honest, I'm not making this stuff up.
... from page 135 of the aforementioned book ...
There are actually twenty Messiahs-Saviors-Sons of God which,
according to history or tradition, have, in past times, descended
from heaven, and taken upon themselves the form of men ...
and furnished incontestable evidence of a divine origin, by various
miracles, marvelous works, and superlative virtues; and finally
they laid the foundation for the salvation of the world and
ascended back to heaven.
The following persons all received divine honors, have nearly all
been worshiped as Gods or Sons of God; were mostly incarnated
as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them
were reputedly born of virgins; some of them filling a character
almost identical with that ascribed by the Christians' bible to Jesus
Christ; many of them, like him, are reported to have been crucified;
and all of them, taken together, furnish a prototype and parallel for
nearly every important incident and wonder-inciting miracle,
doctrine and precept recorded in the New Testament, of the
Christians' Savior:
1. Chrishna of Hindostan
2. Budha Sakia of India
3. Salivahana of Bermuda
4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt
5. Odin of the Scandinavians
6. Crite of Chaldea
7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia
8. Baal and Taut, "the only begotten of God," of Phoenecia
9. Indra of Tibet
10. Bali of Afghanistan
11. Jao of Nepal
12. Wittoba of the Bilingonese
13. Thammuz of Syria
14. Atys of Phrygia
15. Xamolxis of Thrace
16. Zoar of the Bonzes
17. Adad of Assyria
18. Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam
19. Alcides of Thebes
20. Mikado of the Sintoos
21. Beddru of Japan
22. Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids
23. Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls
24. Cadmus of Greece
25. Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
26. Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
27. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
28. Ischy of the island of Formosa
29. Divine Teacher of Plato
30. Holy One of Xaca
31. Fohi and Tien of China
32. Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece
33. Ixion and Quirinus of Rome
34. Prometheus of Caucasus
35. Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia
- - - - - - -
Conclusion: Humans concocted the god/christ stories based
on their particular "wants-needs-desires-exposure to other
religions-mythmaking aspirations" early in cross-pollinated
human cultures. Myths, one and all.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
>Getteur
Pied Piper
dealing with the Historical Jesus. Starting with ridiculous premises is
hardly the way to find the truth.
Pax
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:veeC4.15867$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >The book quoted here is one written with assumptions that are utterly
> >ridiculous.
> >
> >Pax
>
> There were several parts to the post and several book references.
> Do you have any specific criticisms?
> ______________________________________________
>
> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
>
> The truth continues to set me free.
>
> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
> ______________________________________________
>
> >[skipped]
> >> ---
> >>
> >> [skipped for brevity]
>
Dan Fake
>premises is hardly the way to find the truth.
Many scholars would be insulted by your remark. Read the Newsweek
article carefully, refer to skeptical scholars, and get back to me on your
pompous falsehood. Do you have a brain? Use it. Think. Learn. Ponder.
Probe. Search. Know no god and know the truth.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
>Pax
>
>
>Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:veeC4.15867$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
>> >The book quoted here is one written with assumptions that are utterly
>> >ridiculous.
>> >
>> >Pax
>>
>> There were several parts to the post and several book references.
>> Do you have any specific criticisms?
>>
>> [skipped for brevity]
Petteri Sulonen
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >The one giving a load of [skipped] in place of anything resembling
> >scholarship dealing with the Historical Jesus. Starting with ridiculous
> >premises is hardly the way to find the truth.
>
> Many scholars would be insulted by your remark. Read the Newsweek
> article carefully, refer to skeptical scholars, and get back to me on your
> pompous falsehood. Do you have a brain? Use it. Think. Learn. Ponder.
> Probe. Search. Know no god and know the truth.
The original post did contain at least one bit of dishonest scholarship,
from the other poster you're quoting:
"Also, recall that the later interpolation found in book
20, Chapter 9, names the "...SO-CALLED Christ...",
after earlier (book 18) referring to Jesus as "He
WAS the Christ....". Hey, do you suppose Josephus
changed his mind or lost faith!"
The scholarly consensus is _not_ that the "later interpolation" *was* an
interpolation. In fact, it's more likely that the said bit is genuine --
although it's, of course, not certain that it's referring to _the_ Jesus.
The text implies the opposite. This is dishonest -- "making a case," not
searching for the truth.
Also, the post quotes Jakob Burckhardt as an authority. Jakob Burckhardt
is a revolting character -- a "historian with a mission" if there ever was
one. I've always wondered why he continues to be included in some
university curricula. In this case, he may well have been right (he *was*
quite often), but I wouldn't accept anything from him without
cross-checking.
On the whole, of course, the post was accurate -- there is no solid
extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus. I think the strongest case for his
historical existence is that alternative theories about the founding of
Christianity aren't any stronger. The discussion of how he was
mythologized was interesting.
My hunch is that the closest we'll ever get to the historical Jesus is the
Gospel of Thomas -- which tells us something of what he said, but nothing
of what he did.
(And, no, I don't believe he was the Son of God or the Saviour of Mankind.
I think he was just a wandering philosopher-preacher. Those were two a
penny at the time!)
-- Petteri
Gutta cavat lapidem non vi, sed semper cadendo. |a.a #1442. EAC, Cmsr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove spamblock and reply by e-mail, or I may not see your post.
godfry n. glad
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> His reference to brothers James and Jesus were
> common enough names (James is Greek 'Iakobos',
> or Hebrew 'Yaakov', or English 'Jacob'). No mention
> of them being 'the sons of Joseph', the common
> patristic appellation of the times.
>
>
> Cornelius Tacitus(55-130 A.D.)--Annals XV.
> 44.....It was not until the 15th century A.D. that the
> account of "Christus" (Ooooops.... ain't a proper
> name!) was 'discovered' by Poggio Bracciolini (the
> suspected author of "Annals"!) in Tacitus' writings.
> It was then published by Johannes de Spire of
> Venice in 1468 A.D. The account was NEVER
> referred to prior to the 15th century. The account
> only represents a report by Christians about a
> "Christus" in about 117-120 A.D. The account
> refers to Pilate as 'procurator' (a term not in general
> use until perhaps 50 yrs. later. Instead, Pilate would
> have been until then known as 'prefect'). The
> account mentions a "vast multitude" of Christians in
> 64 A.D. Rome. Hah!! It also mentions "death by
> fire".
>
> Hah!! The Romans did NOT execute by burning.
I'm informed that Romans often tried to make the punishment
"fit the crime" as it were. Thus, an arsonist might indeed
be executed by fire.
> The account has Christians persecuted for their faith.
> Hah!! (They WERE persecuted for their political
> aspirations and sedition......Hmmmmmm, that has a
> familiar ring, even today!). The account has
> Christians being burned in Nero's gardens. Another
> account by Tacitus has fire victims being HOUSED
> in Nero's gardens! Besides, Nero was in Antium, not
> Rome, during the course of the fire (according to
> another account by Tacitus!).
And returned to deal with the catastrophe when the fire
threatened his palace. Being elsewhere does not excuse
Nero from responsibility; he could have hired henchmen
to do his work. Also, you are assuming that the situation
immediately following the fire is the same as when the
scapegoat Christians were punished for setting it, which
may have been days, weeks or even months later.
>
> The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris)
> were called 'Christians' then!!
>
This is what I think has promise and I'm looking for corroborating
documentary evidence...Can you provide any other than this unsupported
assertion?
> Also the Roman historian Vopiscus wrote
> "Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians...".)
AH HA! Now were getting warmer....Can you provide a bibliographic
citation for this quote?
>
> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
>
godfry
--
"They never come up to Sector R."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
get...@aol.com (Getteur) wrote:
> [skipped]
>
> If you happen to come up with some hard facts, not just the
> self-serving speculation you've already mentioned, let me know.
>
> Getteur
Hard fact (as in rock solid) and easy fact (as in anyone with a clue
can tell you) - the bible is preposterous. The part of the post you
ignored is repeated below:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
JOANN...@webtv.net (Joanne Saul) wrote:
> I hate t tell you guys, but you sound like a bunch of religious freaks
> to me. Now all you need to do is print that up and stand in front of a
> grocery store in a suit.
So, Joanne Saul, please provide specific refutations
if you have any, for the information you are referring
to.
I know this information likely comes as a shock to you being
that you're probably one with the brainwashed crowd, steeped
in myth/fear/delusion based on whatever church doctrine
you were exposed to during your childhood/young adulthood.
As for standing in front of a grocery store in a suit,
no thanks (not my style).
Peter Walker
<d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Excerpt from page 137 of "The Book Your Church
>Doesn't Want You To Read", edited by Tim C. Leedom.
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
>
>First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
>of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
>for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
>flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
>get people to buy into their phony myth.
Sorry, Dan, but that isn't what I saw. Half or more of the one-star
reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
information or documentary reference.
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | WWW: http://spacsun.rice.edu/~pww
BAAWA Master Squire | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
Scott
Don't you think that comparitive religion schollars haven't noticed the
similarities in world religions? It's old hat, as the saying goes.
http://www.iol15.com/jpholding/tekton/TL.BYC_0840389086.html
It interesting how much difference there can be between uk and us reviews
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158/interinfidinc/026-319656
9-9711805
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0840389086/instituteforfirsA/103-14
27723-1675813
try doing your own research to see how up to snuff the author is:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~religion/vri/comp_rel.html
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/introd.html
http://www.links2go.com/topic/Religion
http://www.links2go.com/topic/Mythology
Nikitta Riber
to tell you that. I had spotted the Odin resemblence before, but... Oh...
and I fell for the trick quiz (like most, I suppose)
--
Mvh. Nikitta
" Death is just natures way of saying ' hey, you're not alive anymore' " -
Bull
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> took a very deep breath and
wrote
Dan Fake
>>Doesn't Want You To Read", edited by Tim C. Leedom.
>>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
>>
>>First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
>>of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
>>for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
>>flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
>>get people to buy into their phony myth.
>
>reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
>shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
>information or documentary reference.
They are mistaken.The referenced book is a compilation of materials
with details on authors/source documents. The particular material
referenced in this thread come from "The World's Sixteen Crucified
Saviors", published by the Truth Seeker Co., New York, 1875, by
Kersey Graves.
As for the remainder of the book, I could take a lot of time and
list them here, but I'll take the easy way out. From the copyright
page of the book ...
Those interested in contacting authors and contributors to this
book may contact:
The Truth Seeker Company
Post Office Box 2872
San Diego, CA 92112
1-800-321-9054
Some authors included in the book that may ring a bell: William
Edelen, Thomas Paine, Michael Baigent, a review by William B.
Lindley of a book by bishop John Spong, Dan Barker, Delos
McKown, Joseph McCabe, Steve Allen, Robert Green Ingersoll.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>--
Pied Piper
opinion. Try reading a few of the numerous books on the topic of the
historical Jesus, then perhaps you will be capable of knowing what you are
talking about.
Pax
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:V4gC4.16147$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >The one giving a load of [skipped] in place of anything resembling
> >scholarship dealing with the Historical Jesus. Starting with ridiculous
> >premises is hardly the way to find the truth.
>
> Many scholars would be insulted by your remark. Read the Newsweek
> article carefully, refer to skeptical scholars, and get back to me on your
> pompous falsehood. Do you have a brain? Use it. Think. Learn. Ponder.
> Probe. Search. Know no god and know the truth.
> ______________________________________________
>
> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
>
> The truth continues to set me free.
>
> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
> ______________________________________________
>
> >
> >Pax
> >
> >
> >Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:veeC4.15867$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >> >The book quoted here is one written with assumptions that are utterly
> >> >ridiculous.
> >> >
> >> >Pax
> >>
Kamian
> In article <38D8780A...@teleport.com>,
> "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> besquelched:
>
...8< snip (recalcitrant god-trotter non-critique of a.a's FAQ)
Your twit status hasn't changed, John...
Yer *still* an Energizer-Dummy for imginary, mythological beings.
Your god has NO nose- so how does it smell?
>>> TERRIBLE <<<
ha ha ha
Ya, right
ha ha
Ya,
ha >>> AMAZING <<<
Ya-
Petteri Sulonen
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Peter Walker wrote in message <230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
> >In article <8bdvqd$kik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
> ><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Excerpt from page 137 of "The Book Your Church
> >>Doesn't Want You To Read", edited by Tim C. Leedom.
> >>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
> >>
> >>First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
> >>of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
> >>for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
> >>flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
> >>get people to buy into their phony myth.
> >
> >Sorry, Dan, but that isn't what I saw. Half or more of the one-star
> >reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
> >shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
> >information or documentary reference.
>
> They are mistaken.The referenced book is a compilation of materials
> with details on authors/source documents. The particular material
> referenced in this thread come from "The World's Sixteen Crucified
> Saviors", published by the Truth Seeker Co., New York, 1875, by
> Kersey Graves.
No wonder the spellings of the deities were completely out to lunch.
"Chrisna" indeed. (To be perfectly clear: research from 1875 is *NOT*
authoritative. If you use it, you *MUST* cross-check everything. Using
that as a reference is as silly as a certain loony MusLim's using Gibbons
to prove that Mohammed was the Prophet.)
[snip]
Dan, you're overdoing it again. You're using *anything* you can to further
your point -- and by using stuff that's poorly researched, outdated, or
biased you're only damaging your point. The central point of your post, of
course, was solid -- that Jesus Christ is one among many similar figures
in human mythology. Once more, turn down that missionary zeal a bit and
you might get through to more people -- and learn to read critically. Not
every atheist or anti-religionist is or was right about everything they
say or have said. This way you sound exactly like the Propaganda
Commission for Scientific Atheism of the Kiev Komsomol in the 1960's. And
it's not a flattering comparison.
Malcolm
26.iptelecom.net.ua>, psul...@zeos.spamblock.net (Petteri
Sulonen) wrote:
> Dan, you're overdoing it again. You're using
> *anything* you can to further
> your point -- and by using stuff that's poorly
> researched, outdated, or
> biased you're only damaging your point. The central
> point of your post, of
> course, was solid -- that Jesus Christ is one among
> many similar figures
> in human mythology. Once more, turn down that
> missionary zeal a bit and
> you might get through to more people -- and learn to
> read critically. Not
> every atheist or anti-religionist is or was right
> about everything they
> say or have said.
Thank you Petteri. I know without reading them that Dan's
books are trash - scholarly reasearch doesn't have
"sensational new findings that the Church doesn't want you
to read" emblazoned over its cover.
I'm not an historian and as a Catholic apologist it is
difficult for me to make Dan see my points. You are right
that there is very little solid extra-biblical evidence for
Jesus, but the idea that St Paul made the character up, or
accepted a figure concocted by St Peter and the other
apostles from ancient myth, really doesn't bear serious
analysis. The serious question is how many of the events of
the gospels are historical, and how many are later
accretions.
I would like to know if there is any serious evidence of a
connection between Mithras or Krishna and the Christian
view of Jesus. Obviously when Dan's books start mentioning
Aztec gods like Quetzalcoatl we are firmly in kook-land,
however I have heard some Jewish sources claim that the
Eucharist is "straight out of the mystery religions." Is
this fair ?
What annoys me about alt.atheism is that so many people
seem to write off two thousand years of Christian Europe as
a period of unremitting ignorance and atrocities. This is
far from being the case.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Peter Terry
master of history..Your a bloody fraud Paxo!
PeterT
Pied Piper wrote in message ...
>What article? Perhaps you should read more that one periodical to form
your
>opinion. Try reading a few of the numerous books on the topic of the
>historical Jesus, then perhaps you will be capable of knowing what you are
>talking about.
>
>
>Pax
>
>
>Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:V4gC4.16147$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
>> >The one giving a load of [skipped] in place of anything resembling
>> >scholarship dealing with the Historical Jesus. Starting with ridiculous
>> >premises is hardly the way to find the truth.
>>
>> Many scholars would be insulted by your remark. Read the Newsweek
>> article carefully, refer to skeptical scholars, and get back to me on
your
>> pompous falsehood. Do you have a brain? Use it. Think. Learn. Ponder.
>> Probe. Search. Know no god and know the truth.
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
>> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
>> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
>> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
>>
>> The truth continues to set me free.
>>
>> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
>> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >
>> >Pax
>> >
>> >
>> >Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:veeC4.15867$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
>> >> >The book quoted here is one written with assumptions that are utterly
>> >> >ridiculous.
>> >> >
>> >> >Pax
>> >>
Peter Terry
What zeal! you dont believe in doing things in halves,eh.
I wouldn't discount any of it, except to say its worthy of further
investigation. I could safely accept, 'based upon fact'.
Not to different to orthodox religions, humans perpetuating
long standing myths which are after all, as old as consciousness.
Thats the way we seem to be! - temporarily at least.
Above all and inspite of Christianity, it comes down to the teachings
of a man, of a time, whose intellect and perception of reality were
extremely advanced. In the main, JC was thinking models that the
world has only just began dealing with. If you remove the religion
and myth away from what this ancient had to say as roughly recorded
in the gospels, the change of perception is remarkable.
PeterT
Dan Fake wrote in message ...
Peter Terry
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. wrote in message <8bdmni$9t2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>As if that isn't enough to make one wonder, let's go back to
>Mexico, circa 2,300 years ago ... what's happening in their
>culture? The incarnate God Quexalcote was born of a spotless
>virgin, by the name Chimalman, and led a life of the deepest
>humility and piety; retired to a wilderness, fasted forty days,
>was worshipped as a God, and was finally crucified between
>two thieves; after which he was buried and descended into
>hell, but rose again the third day.
>
This is new and a very interesting observation.
Having not read the book, on what study or basis does it give, that
these conclusions are drawn from?
PeterT
Zirb-Monkey
similar to jumbo shrimp and government organization. The two words just don't
fit together.
Peter Terry wrote:
> What a cop out...Is this all we get from self proclaiming
> master of history..Your a bloody fraud Paxo!
>
> PeterT
>
> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >What article? Perhaps you should read more that one periodical to form
> your
> >opinion. Try reading a few of the numerous books on the topic of the
> >historical Jesus, then perhaps you will be capable of knowing what you are
> >talking about.
> >
> >
> >Pax
> >
> >
> >Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:V4gC4.16147$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >> >The one giving a load of [skipped] in place of anything resembling
> >> >scholarship dealing with the Historical Jesus. Starting with ridiculous
> >> >premises is hardly the way to find the truth.
> >>
> >> Many scholars would be insulted by your remark. Read the Newsweek
> >> article carefully, refer to skeptical scholars, and get back to me on
> your
> >> pompous falsehood. Do you have a brain? Use it. Think. Learn. Ponder.
> >> Probe. Search. Know no god and know the truth.
> >> ______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
> >> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
> >> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
> >> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
> >>
> >> The truth continues to set me free.
> >>
> >> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
> >> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
> >> ______________________________________________
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Pax
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:veeC4.15867$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> >> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >> >> >The book quoted here is one written with assumptions that are utterly
> >> >> >ridiculous.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Pax
> >> >>
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
"Pied Piper" <p...@christ.net> wrote:
> What article? Perhaps you should read more that one periodical to
> form your opinion. Try reading a few of the numerous books on the
> topic of the historical Jesus, then perhaps you will be capable of
> knowing what you are talking about.
>
> Pax
Hmmmm - odd that you've forgotten the earlier material in this
thread so quickly - for your benefit, previously assembled material
is included in this 3 part reply, as follows:
From the Back Cover
What Muslims believe about Jesus comes from the Qur'an—not
the New Testament, which they consider tainted by human error.
They also draw upon their own oral traditions ... the infant
Jesus announces that he is God's prophet, though not God's
son, since Allah is "above having a son" according to the
Qur'an. ...
in India there is a strong tradition that the teenage Jesus
slipped away from his parents, journeyed across Southeast
Asia learning yogic meditation and returned home to become
a guru to the Jews ... To Hindus, India is the Holy Land, its
sacred mountains and rivers enlivened by more than 300,000
local deities. It is only natural, then, that Jesus would come
to India to learn the secrets of unlocking his own inherent
divinity. ...
The life stories of Jesus and the Buddha are strikingly similar ...
when Buddhists encounter Christianity they depersonalize
the Jesus who walked this earth and transform him into a
figure more like Buddha. ... He believed in sin, which is not
a Buddhist concept. Jesus did not teach compassion as
a way of removing bad karma, nor did he see life as a cycle
of death and rebirth. In short, says the Dalai Lama, trying
to meld Jesus into Buddha "is like putting a yak's head on
a sheep's body." It doesn't work. ...
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
- - -
And scores of others.....
Not bloody likely!
Josephus attestment to such) [A reasonably
balanced popular article on Josephus'(spurious)
mentions of Jesus can be found in the magazine
'Bible Review', 6-91, for those desiring more
background on the question].
OTHER MISC. "HISTORICAL" OFFERINGS
Eusebius' fourth (and Clement of Alexandria's
Thallus and his (non-existent) comments about
---
Book references:
The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read,
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
Doesn't Want You To Read", edited by Tim C. Leedom.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
... from page 138 of the aforementioned book ...
As if that isn't enough to make one wonder, let's go back to
Mexico, circa 2,300 years ago ... what's happening in their
culture? The incarnate God Quexalcote was born of a spotless
virgin, by the name Chimalman, and led a life of the deepest
humility and piety; retired to a wilderness, fasted forty days,
was worshipped as a God, and was finally crucified between
two thieves; after which he was buried and descended into
hell, but rose again the third day.
- - - - - - -
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
psul...@zeos.spamblock.net (Petteri Sulonen) wrote:
> [skipped] This way you sound exactly like the Propaganda
> Commission for Scientific Atheism of the Kiev Komsomol in the
> 1960's. And it's not a flattering comparison.
>
> -- Petteri
Thanks for that obligatory reference to the ex-Soviet Union. I'd
be disappointed if you hadn't found a way to throw that in, as
seems your wont. Your opinions are placed in my "obsession with
the Soviet Union file, along with Dr. Sinister, Starbuck, and
others of that ilk. You dispute the reference because it was
written 125 years ago? What say you regarding Charles Darwins'
"Origin of the Species", published 141 years ago? Not bad for
a book written before the vast knowledge of genes, DNA, and a
multitude of other scientific discoveries was made. Are you
claiming that vast "Jesus knowledge" has been made in the last
125 years which has overturned the reference material you are
disputing?
Of course you give an obligatory "jesus?" acknowledgment while
at the same time ignoring the amalgamation of the other material
in this thread which clearly supports the logical underpinnings
of the material you are blindly disputing (of note, without
disputation references of any kind whatsoever).
How about the christian bible, written from 2,950 to 1,860 years
ago? Any doubts, there? Maybe you can throw in something from the
Soviet Union on this criticism. Sheesh, talk about bias, must be
something about living on the border of the Soviet Union and
traveling to the Ukraine (and other factors, undisclosed) that
makes you obsess on the communists.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
Malcolm <donald.mcl...@talk21.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <psulonen-2403001036080001@dialup2-
> seem to write off two thousand years of Christian Europe as
> a period of unremitting ignorance and atrocities. This is
> far from being the case.
Piggyback...
Congrats, Petteri. You just made friends with a devout
catholic who supports the torture/burning of witches
because, hey, they were witches. Read Malcolm's posts
in this thread and try to offer a counter view if you
can, what with your supposed atheist leanings (although
I'm not so sure of your atheism anymore - as I recall,
Petteri, you were experimenting with eastern philosophies
in the mystical realm the last time you spoke directly
to the god/no god(s) issue).
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
get...@aol.com (Getteur) wrote:
> Dan Fake wrote:
>
> >Hard fact (as in rock solid) and easy fact (as in anyone with a clue
> >can tell you) - the bible is preposterous. The part of the post you
> >ignored is repeated below:
> >
>
> I made no claims regarding the Bible. My entire discussion what
> leveled at the claim that the historical individual known as
> Jesus of Nazareth--whatever others claim him to be--never existed,
That's the point - there's no legitimate historical evidence that
a single (pick one: [nut] [fruitcake] [prophet] [weirdo] [mentally
incompetent] [delusionary]) man remotely resembling the mythical christ
figure ever existed in fact - Myths a-go-go? Yes. Facts? It's just not
happening, not logically, not circumstantially, not referentially.
Clue in, jesus fans, for jesus of son of god fame to have existed, you'd
have to prove god existed on some basis other than blind belief.
For jesus the man to have existed, you'd have to have some non-blind
belief methodology to clearly point to "reality" as opposed to "myth"
as the source for the jesus/christ/son-of-god stories. The evidence for
"myth" as the source of the son of god stories is overwhelming,
starting with the myths of the nomadic goat herders and ending with the
myths of the early christian churches - they just don't fly in the
modern age with the least bit of skepticism and critical thought put
into play.
Even if, and you haven't done so, but even if you came up with some guy
living at the time who was "the guy" who closely resembled the "son of
god" myths you're so fond of, you're still stuck with the god blind
belief deal and without a god you cannot *logically* have a son of god,
now can you? You might say, well, let's start with a son of god and
work our way up from there but I guarantee you that your only way to do
so is BLIND BELIEF and that just doesn't cut it amongst skeptical and
well-informed humans in the modern world, with widespread information
available on the true nature of humanity/mythology/god fear.
> but was a made up person. Secondly, If you read my post (which the
> vast majority of you neglected to quote) you will find that I did
> address those issues. Try to get your facts straight before you
> [skipped insult].
>
> Getteur
Isn't the love of some humans just so ... toasty?
Eric Gill
>
> In article <psulonen-2403001036080001@dialup2-
> 26.iptelecom.net.ua>, psul...@zeos.spamblock.net (Petteri
> Sulonen) wrote:
>
> > *anything* you can to further
> > your point -- and by using stuff that's poorly
> > researched, outdated, or
> > biased you're only damaging your point. The central
> > point of your post, of
> > course, was solid -- that Jesus Christ is one among
> > many similar figures
> > in human mythology. Once more, turn down that
> > missionary zeal a bit and
> > you might get through to more people -- and learn to
> > read critically. Not
> > every atheist or anti-religionist is or was right
> > about everything they
> > say or have said.
>
> Thank you Petteri. I know without reading them that Dan's
> books are trash - scholarly reasearch doesn't have
> "sensational new findings that the Church doesn't want you
> to read" emblazoned over its cover.
>
> I'm not an historian and as a Catholic apologist it is
> difficult for me to make Dan see my points.
I would think so, if you are trying to argue history.
> You are right
> that there is very little solid extra-biblical evidence for
> Jesus,
I am unaware of *any*. Are you? If so, what is it?
> but the idea that St Paul made the character up, or
> accepted a figure concocted by St Peter and the other
> apostles from ancient myth, really doesn't bear serious
> analysis.
Why not? The similarities to other mythology (the Mithraic sacrifice,
for example) are obvious.
> The serious question is how many of the events of
> the gospels are historical, and how many are later
> accretions.
Or are they amalgamations of mythology and the many messiah claimants in
Judea at the time? (At least up to the point the early Christians
started their missionary work and some of the events can be
corraborated.)
> I would like to know if there is any serious evidence of a
> connection between Mithras or Krishna and the Christian
> view of Jesus. Obviously when Dan's books start mentioning
> Aztec gods like Quetzalcoatl we are firmly in kook-land,
Why, exactly? That was/is indeed such an Aztec diety.
> however I have heard some Jewish sources claim that the
> Eucharist is "straight out of the mystery religions." Is
> this fair ?
Probably. How much do you know of the Essenes?
> What annoys me about alt.atheism is that so many people
> seem to write off two thousand years of Christian Europe as
> a period of unremitting ignorance and atrocities. This is
> far from being the case.
No, no. More like a thousand years or so. The "Enlightenment" is aptly
named, but it still took some time to re-learn what was lost beginning
about the rule of Constantine and we're still feeling echoes of the
Witch craze and the atrocities of a strong church.
Will Pratt has posted a interesting discussion on the root cause of the
poor quality of the original King James translation over in
Talk.Origins. Summary: the knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and old Greek
had atrophied badly by this time, and the translators, brilliant as many
were, simply did not have access to enough information.
acorn
>(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and maxing out
>this one and only experience we all know and share on this
>earth, at this time, in this life)
>The truth continues to set me free
What is this truth that continues to set you free? Do not say
it is the realization that there is no God. If that is the case
you are locked into refuting the idea of God and are not
actually free. What else is this truth that sets you free?
I took the time to read your postings on this thread. And to
also jump to most of the links you have presented. In reading
all of this I see nothing clear that proves anything about
Jesus. There is a lot of suggesting going on, but no real
support for your assertions.
Many of what has been stated is not new. It is really a
pooling of most of the "God is dead" stuff that came out of the
late 50's and 60's.
The idea that none of the Gospels are mentioned in Epistles is
kind of silly. Seeing as the Gospels were works in progress at
the time to mention the would be premature; the Gospels were
not even seen as Gospels at that time. Besides the is really
only one Gospel: the teachings of Christ.
The discussion about the different views of Christ by the
Christians, Jews, and Muslims is quite valid. Though this is
true the conclusions drawn from those discussion were not
supported by any thing mentioned in the discussions.
Over the centuries a lot of mixing of Jesus with the easern
philosophies has taken place. Nothing really serious has come
of this though. Actually most of eastern philosophies/religions
are for the most part atheist. So, try to bring them together
makes no sense.
Blank Frank, I think you have an emotional attachment to
Christianity. Why else would you take up so much of your time
trying to disprove it to everyone. There really is no logical
explanation for faith in God, Jesus, or and deity really. But,
there is no explicit reason you or any other atheist has given
to why there is no God. God is quite personal. You will
continue to fail at swaying theist from faith in a God. You
might as well stop wasting you time.
BTW - you should look into this emotional attachment of yours;
it is not really to becoming for you.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
acorn <mcbconN...@consultant.com.invalid> wrote:
> [skipped]
>
> Blank Frank, I think you have an emotional attachment to
> Christianity. Why else would you take up so much of your time
> trying to disprove it to everyone. There really is no logical
> explanation for faith in God, Jesus, or and deity really.
Hmmmm - devoid of logic, that blind belief thing. Anyone
see something devoid of logic as having any relevance
whatsoever to our real lives in this real world in which
our destinies are controlled by natural law?
> But, there is no explicit reason you or any other atheist has given
> to why there is no God.
You just said the whole blind belief thing is illogical. Now
you're saying there's no reason to accept that an illogical
belief thing has any basis whatsoever to be followed. Hmmmmm,
no logic, unreasonable, and pure unadulterated hooey from past
human ignorance, yet you still cling to it based on, oh I don't
know, a multitude of factors, not the least of which is the
very same factor humans used to come up with imaginary beings
in the first place - FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN.
> God is quite personal. You will continue to fail at swaying
> theist from faith in a God. You might as well stop wasting you
> time.
As long as I have life and the ability to communicate, I will
continue to strive towards freeing the slaves of childhood
brainwashing, lies, myths, deceits, manipulations, and mental
slavery. 'Tis a worthy cause.
>
> BTW - you should look into this emotional attachment of yours;
> it is not really to becoming for you.
That statement is obviously an attempt by you to discount human
emotion, at least to discount it when it's not in accordance with
your blind beliefs. I take pride in my search for truth and in my
efforts to free humanity from <see above>. If you don't t-h-i-n-k
and you don't use l-o-g-i-c, you cannot be free.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
"Peter Terry" <rua...@fan.net.au> wrote:
>
> What zeal! you dont believe in doing things in halves,eh.
>
> I wouldn't discount any of it, except to say its worthy of further
> investigation. I could safely accept, 'based upon fact'.
>
> Not to different to orthodox religions, humans perpetuating
> long standing myths which are after all, as old as consciousness.
> Thats the way we seem to be! - temporarily at least.
>
> Above all and inspite of Christianity, it comes down to the teachings
> of a man, of a time, whose intellect and perception of reality were
> extremely advanced. In the main, JC was thinking models that the
> world has only just began dealing with. If you remove the religion
> and myth away from what this ancient had to say as roughly recorded
> in the gospels, the change of perception is remarkable.
Not really, there is little to support your "real man" hypothesis. The
entire gospel story is an assemblage, a menage, an uninspired mix of
love and hate based on a fictitious son of god who never existed in
fact. The evidence is overwhelming in that regard. Further evidence
follows:
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
by Acharya S
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813747
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ3.htm
Paperback - 430 pages (September 1999)
Book Description
Controversial and explosive, The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous
amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and
Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies,
mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under
one state religion! This powerful book maintains that these groups drew
upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before
the Christian era and reworked them into the story the Christian
religion presents today-known to most Westerners as the Bible.
Author Acharya makes the case that there was no actual person named
Jesus, but that several characters were rolled into one mythic being
inspired by the deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many
others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates that the story of Jesus,
as portrayed in the Gospels, is nearly identical in detail to those of
the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that Jesus was
certainly neither original nor unique, nor was he the divine
revelation. Rather, he represents the very ancient body of knowledge
derived from celestial observation and natural forces.
A book that will initiate heated debate and inner struggle, it is
intelligently written and referenced. The only book of its kind, it is
destined for controversy.
- - -
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
by Kersey Graves
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0948390158
Review by Leslie Shepard, London, 1970: "Is the Bible true? Ever since
Tom Paines daring Age of Reason at the end of the eighteenth century,
Freethinkers have sought a rational, non-mystical view of the universe,
and their arguments against dogmatic Christianity have often been
reinforced by appeals to pagan religions which contain myths
paralleling the New Testament stories and throwing doubt on their
priority or historicity. Freethinkers aggressive attacks on dogma.
Nowadays the cause of literary freedom and tolerance demands that the
Freethought case be properly heard. THE WORLDS SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED
SAVIORS is a Freethought classic. It is a popular discussion of the
Saviors, Messiahs, or Sons of God preceding the Christian era, and the
rituals and religions which surrounded them. It is a vigorous criticism
of the orthodox Christian position. ..."
- - -
Forgery in Christianity : A Documented Record of the
Foundations of the Christian Religion
by Joseph Wheless
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1564592251
Book Description
Contents: Pagan Frauds Christian Precedents; Hebrew Holy Forgeries;
Christian Scripture Forgeries; The Saintly Fathers of the Faith; The
Gospel Forgeries; The Church Forgery Mill; The Triumph of Christianity;
Index.
- - -
Is It God's Word : An Exposition of the Fables & Mythology of
the Bible & the Fallacies of Theology
by Joseph Wheless
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156459226X
Book Description
An Exposition of the Fables and Mythology of the Bible and the
Fallacies of Theology. Contents: The Menace of Religious Intolerance;
Genesis of Christianity; A Sketch of Hebrew Scriptures; The Patriarchs
and the Covenants of Yahveh; Wonders of the Exodus; Forty Years in the
Wilderness; The Ten Commandments and the Law; Conquest of the Promised
Land; Hebrew-Heathen Religion, Sex Worship and Idols; Pagan God And
Gods Of Israel; Yahveh The Terrible God of Israel; Holy Priests and
Prophets of Yahveh; Bible Theology and Modern Truth; The Prophecies of
Jesus Christ; The Inspired Harmony of the Gospels; More Harmony of the
Gospels; The Sacred Doctrines of Christianity; The Christian Plan of
Salvation; Revelations of the Hereafter; Cesset Superstitio! And Then?
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
> PeterT
>
> [skipped]
Earle Jones
psul...@zeos.spamblock.net (Petteri Sulonen) wrote:
> In article <mqzC4.16776$mf.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Peter Walker wrote in message <230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
> > >In article <8bdvqd$kik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
> > ><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...]
> (To be perfectly clear: research from 1875 is *NOT*
> authoritative. If you use it, you *MUST* cross-check everything.
*
How about "research" from 300 AD? How reliable is that?
earle
*
Greg Gyetko
> What say you regarding Charles Darwins'
>
> "Origin of the Species",
>
Nitpick, but an important one to avoid human egotism:
"Origin of species"
This indicates that it applies to all species. The title you quoted
sounds like it's just about monkeys turning in to men, and I'm tired of
the way that creationists use *that*.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why bother?."
EAC Homepage: http://eac.home.dhs.org
acorn
>> Christianity. Why else would you take up so much of your time
>> trying to disprove it to everyone. There really is no logical
>> explanation for faith in God, Jesus, or and deity really.
>
>Hmmmm - devoid of logic, that blind belief thing. Anyone
>see something devoid of logic as having any relevance
>whatsoever to our real lives in this real world in which
>our destinies are controlled by natural law?
I never used the word belief. And I never said anything about
doing so blindly. Also, you are the supplying the term devoid
of logic. My words were "no logical explanation." Explantions
can be above logic. We are limited in our abilities to grasp at
our existence. The scope of existence is far greater then
anyone can perceive/understand.
That our destinies are controlled by natural law is a limit you
choose to accept. You accept this in a manner of faith. I
personally do not share this faith based religion of yours.
>> But, there is no explicit reason you or any other atheist has
given
>> to why there is no God.
>
>You just said the whole blind belief thing is illogical. Now
>you're saying there's no reason to accept that an illogical
>belief thing has any basis whatsoever to be followed. Hmmmmm,
>no logic, unreasonable, and pure unadulterated hooey from past
>human ignorance, yet you still cling to it based on, oh I don't
>know, a multitude of factors, not the least of which is the
>very same factor humans used to come up with imaginary beings
>in the first place - FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN.
>
You seem to be the one living in fear. You cling to logic as if
it is all you can depend on. The trouble with logic is that it
is dependent on assumption. When assumptions change all the
dependent logic looses meaning.
I do not fear the unknown. I simply choose to embrace the
unknown with out the illusion that I somehow understand
everything. I have been agnostic, athiest, buddhist, taoist,
and other such ists in the past. None of these other
perspectives give one any more than theism.
>> God is quite personal. You will continue to fail at swaying
>> theist from faith in a God. You might as well stop wasting you
>> time.
>
>As long as I have life and the ability to communicate, I will
>continue to strive towards freeing the slaves of childhood
>brainwashing, lies, myths, deceits, manipulations, and mental
>slavery. 'Tis a worthy cause.
>
You never answered my question. What is this "truth" that sets
you free? What are you free from? What has your new found
freedom afforded you? Why are you on a mission of salvation?
It seems you are trying to replace one message of salvation for
your own message of salvation. This seems like some kind
illusion of granduer.
>>
>> BTW - you should look into this emotional attachment of yours;
>> it is not really too becoming for you.
>
>That statement is obviously an attempt by you to discount human
>emotion, at least to discount it when it's not in accordance
with
>your blind beliefs.
No, as a zen practioner I firmly espouse the importance of
emotion. But, also I see the burden one places on oneself when
they allow themself to carry around all this baggage.
>I take pride in my search for truth and in my
>efforts to free humanity from <see above>. If you don't t-h-i-n-
k
>and you don't use l-o-g-i-c, you cannot be free.
Pride is truly a sin. Pride also makes someone inflexible and
prone to misunderstanding. Logic, pride are all you seem to
have. Your message of salvation is simply "you" trying to save
yourself from the fear of not having a handle on this thing you
call "truth."
Earle Jones
<donald.mcl...@talk21.com.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> Obviously when Dan's books start mentioning
> Aztec gods like Quetzalcoatl we are firmly in kook-land....
*
What is it about such Aztec gods that puts the subject into "kook-land"?
Does it require some preposterous biologically impossible belief?
Did the Aztecs believe in virgin birth and life after death?
Cal Berkeley Psychology Professor Robert Ornstein wrote that any
successful religion must include some requirement for belief in patently
impossible events. In order for any religion to survive and prosper, it is
necessary to test the faith. Anyone can believe that "Thou shalt not
kill." It takes dedication and faith to believe the impossible.
earle
*
Scott
Petteri Sulonen <psul...@zeos.spamblock.net> wrote in message
news:psulonen-240...@dialup2-26.iptelecom.net.ua...
> In article <mqzC4.16776$mf.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Peter Walker wrote in message
<230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
> > >In article <8bdvqd$kik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
> > ><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Doesn't Want You To Read", edited by Tim C. Leedom.
> > >>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
> > >>
> > >>First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
> > >>of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
> > >>for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
> > >>flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
> > >>get people to buy into their phony myth.
> > >
> > >reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
> > >shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
> > >information or documentary reference.
> >
> > They are mistaken.The referenced book is a compilation of materials
> > with details on authors/source documents. The particular material
> > Saviors", published by the Truth Seeker Co., New York, 1875, by
> > Kersey Graves.
>
> No wonder the spellings of the deities were completely out to lunch.
> "Chrisna" indeed. (To be perfectly clear: research from 1875 is *NOT*
> authoritative. If you use it, you *MUST* cross-check everything. Using
> that as a reference is as silly as a certain loony MusLim's using Gibbons
> to prove that Mohammed was the Prophet.)
>
> [snip]
>
> your point -- and by using stuff that's poorly researched, outdated, or
> biased you're only damaging your point. The central point of your post, of
> course, was solid -- that Jesus Christ is one among many similar figures
> in human mythology. Once more, turn down that missionary zeal a bit and
> you might get through to more people -- and learn to read critically. Not
> every atheist or anti-religionist is or was right about everything they
> Commission for Scientific Atheism of the Kiev Komsomol in the 1960's. And
> it's not a flattering comparison.
>
Maybe he's trying for the twit of the month award. Hell of if is I gave him
a better link than his book the other day:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitewtc.html
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitet05.html
...and it's free! Dan, you're a century late to this party. And because it's
that old your acting like "hay, everybody come see what I've discovered"
makes you look out to lunch.
Scott
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
acorn <mcbconN...@consultant.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> Blank Frank, I think you have an emotional attachment to
> >> Christianity. Why else would you take up so much of your time
> >> trying to disprove it to everyone. There really is no logical
> >> explanation for faith in God, Jesus, or and deity really.
> >
> >Hmmmm - devoid of logic, that blind belief thing. Anyone
> >see something devoid of logic as having any relevance
> >whatsoever to our real lives in this real world in which
> >our destinies are controlled by natural law?
>
> I never used the word belief. And I never said anything about
> doing so blindly. Also, you are the supplying the term devoid
> of logic. My words were "no logical explanation." Explantions
> can be above logic. We are limited in our abilities to grasp at
> our existence. The scope of existence is far greater then
> anyone can perceive/understand.
That's ridiculous, your comments on limits as if our current state of
knowledge is somehow at the edge of human capabilities. Science is
constantly discovering more about our existence - probing further /
farther - calculating faster - exponentially expanding our scope of
consciousness of what and who we are. To rely on some ancient myth for
your cornerstone of being isn't above logic - it's absurd.
>
> That our destinies are controlled by natural law is a limit you
> choose to accept.
Limit of natural law? What limit might that be? The limit of that
which we can know and experience in a real world -or- limitless in that
our imaginations can concoct anything we wish in the realm of imaginary
(supernatural) beings - a concept known as blind belief?
Yep, we're expanding our knowledge but I suppose that if we ever know
everything, there you have it - done deal. You depend on a make believe
fantasy from primitive human origins that's so totally a deep well of
ignorance, superstition, myth, and fear, that it's just downright
abhorrent to truth-loving human sensibilities that you'd still try to
foist it off on humankind as relevant or meaningful in any way, shape,
or form - your position is indefensible logically, realistically,
evidentially, experientially, and theoretically, having nothing to
offer except ignorance and deceit disguised as worthy-no-matter-what.
Sheesh.
> You accept this in a manner of faith. I
> personally do not share this faith based religion of yours.
You're using your brain for little more than a hat rack. Slap yourself
upside the head and get in touch with reality, why don't yuh?
>
> >> But, there is no explicit reason you or any other atheist has
> >> given to why there is no God.
> >
> >You just said the whole blind belief thing is illogical. Now
> >you're saying there's no reason to accept that an illogical
> >belief thing has any basis whatsoever to be followed. Hmmmmm,
> >no logic, unreasonable, and pure unadulterated hooey from past
> >human ignorance, yet you still cling to it based on, oh I don't
> >know, a multitude of factors, not the least of which is the
> >very same factor humans used to come up with imaginary beings
> >in the first place - FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN.
> You seem to be the one living in fear.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Good one.
> You cling to logic as if it is all you can depend on.
Is that a logical statement?
> The trouble with logic is that it is dependent on assumption.
Bzzzzt. False assumption on your part.
> When assumptions change all the dependent logic looses meaning.
See slapping yourself upside the head logic above, and get back to me
on the relevance of your imaginary friends. What is your blind belief
based on? Deceit? Myth? Fear? Hate? Power? Control? Manipulation?
Lying? Conformity? Peer pressure? And you dare to challenge a
philosophy of maxing out all that we know in a real and tangible
world, substituting that with your imaginary beings - YIKES!
>
> I do not fear the unknown. I simply choose to embrace the
> unknown with out the illusion that I somehow understand
> everything. I have been agnostic, athiest, buddhist, taoist,
> and other such ists in the past. None of these other
> perspectives give one any more than theism.
Please.
>
> >> God is quite personal. You will continue to fail at swaying
> >> theist from faith in a God. You might as well stop wasting you
> >> time.
> >
> >As long as I have life and the ability to communicate, I will
> >continue to strive towards freeing the slaves of childhood
> >brainwashing, lies, myths, deceits, manipulations, and mental
> >slavery. 'Tis a worthy cause.
> >
>
> You never answered my question. What is this "truth" that sets
> you free? What are you free from?
Blind belief (oh, get ready folks, he's gonna lay but you're
a believer, too, stuff on me - I see it coming). Search for truth
wherever it leads. Freedom from Anti-Humanism, Anti-Free Thinking,
Delusion, Myth, Closed-minded Thinking, Conformity (to the extent
I can scape that trap), and Mental Slavery.
> What has your new found freedom afforded you?
See "freedoms from" list above. What has your blind belief in
theism given you other than delusion and fear and a willingness
to criticize doubt and free thinking?
> Why are you on a mission of salvation?
Here we go with someone confusing their religious exposure to
myth with the actions and comments of a real human in the real
world - I never used the word "salvation" / "saved" or anything
of the sort, as you well know - you're confusing your religious
influences with the real world. Why are you so opposed to search
for truth in the world in which we live and breathe?
> It seems you are trying to replace one message of salvation for
> your own message of salvation. This seems like some kind
> illusion of granduer.
It appears you're trying to take primitive concepts and center your
life around them - living in the caves of human ignorance and fear.
>
> >>
> >> BTW - you should look into this emotional attachment of yours;
> >> it is not really too becoming for you.
> >
> >That statement is obviously an attempt by you to discount human
> >emotion, at least to discount it when it's not in accordance
> >with your blind beliefs.
>
> No, as a zen practioner I firmly espouse the importance of
> emotion. But, also I see the burden one places on oneself when
> they allow themself to carry around all this baggage.
So, zen theism. Not buddhist, you say, but yet here you reveal
something called zen theism. Hmmmmm.
You scoffed at my emotion and then come back with your emotion is cool
and my emotion is baggage. I could get emotional about that but I'll
let you ponder the error of your ways in that regard. Your attempts to
silence me are somewhat unique but are no less of an affront than
attempts by, shall we say, those with different tactics.
Let me ask you this, if zen theism is so cool, are you going to keep it
your own little secret or are you going to share it with us in some way
we can relate to? If you keep it a secret and promote silence on the
part of those with knowledge to share, I'd say you're one with the
blind belief folks who, in debates with disbeleivers, seem inclined to
accept everyone following one of the "belief in imaginary beings" that
their parents and authority figures told them to follow (usually,
however, they lean towards what their parents and authority figures
told them to follow).
If they're fortunate enough to live in a country where others have had
the courage to speak up for freedom of speech and thought, a minority
of the "belief in imaginary beings" folks are tolerant of those that
have taken advantage of their freedom to, oh I dunno, become atheist,
buddhist, taoist, zen theists, protestants, catholics, hindus,
sikhists, jainists, folk religionists, or whatever "belief in
imaginary beings" they wished.
>
> >I take pride in my search for truth and in my efforts
> >to free humanity from <see above>. If you don't t-h-i-n-k
> >and you don't use l-o-g-i-c, you cannot be free.
>
> Pride is truly a sin.
What's with the sin thing? That's so non-zen of you.
> Pride also makes someone inflexible and prone to misunderstanding.
You should know.
> Logic, pride are all you seem to have.
And in other threads I've been told that all I have is hope. It would
seem that "all you have" is a standard comment by those who haven't
bothered to inquire into the depths and scope of my background and
experiences.
> Your message of salvation is simply "you" trying to save
> yourself from the fear of not having a handle on this thing you
> call "truth."
What? You demean the human experience, foist a non-specified zen theism
on us, characterize my views as "salvation" (you really must get out
more as I've never used the phrase "salvation" or "saved" - it's a
hokey christian "fear of hell" concept, that), and question my search
for truth.
Meditate in zen-like theistic mode, free of bombastic theistic hate and
fear, and reflect on the non-zen approach you're taking in this thread.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
godfry n. glad <god...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <Ey4C4.14437$mf.1157833@bgtnsc05-> >[skipped]
> >
> > The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris)
> > were called 'Christians' then!!
> >
>
> corroborating documentary evidence...Can you provide
> any other than this unsupported assertion?
>
> > Also the Roman historian Vopiscus wrote
> > "Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians...".)
>
> bibliographic citation for this quote?
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer02.htm
Excerpt: "... Flavius Vopiscus, Vita Saturini 8,
though a historian of the stature of H. Gelzer regards
it as authentic, and Harnack is also willing to give it
consideration.[9] According to the context (7.6), this
letter comes from the writings of Phlegon[10] the [[ET 47]]
freedman of Hadrian. In the letter, the emperor remarks
that he is well acquainted with the Egyptians as frivolous
and avid for novelties: "Here those who worship Serapis
are [at the same time] Christians, and those who call
themselves bishops of Christ are also devotees of Serapis.
Here there is no synagogue leader of the Jews, no [52]
Samaritan, no Christian presbyter who is not also an
astrologer, a haruspex, and an aliptes" (8.2 ff.).[11] ..."
- - -
From page 115 of "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity
Begin With a Mythical Christ", by Earl Doherty:
"... Mithraism, with its baptism and cultic meal,
was a major comptetitor to Christianity among the
mysteries during the second and third centuries CE.
Egypt supplied several cultic deities, all of them
interrelated, like Serapsis, Osiris and Isis.
Isis controlled fate and all supernatural powers.
Those initiated into her mysteries were guaranteed
her protection both here on earth, where they
underwent rebirth in her service, and when they
descended into the blissful Elysian fields after
death (so Apuleius tels us in his famous 'novel'
-The Golden Ass-).
Her links with the slain Osiris and his ancient
cult of death and salvation are too complex to
to into, but their child Horus provided a model
for the infant christ, especially in Christian
art which copied the image of "Isis with Horus
at her breast" and turned it into the Madonna and
Child we still see today. ..."
- - -
Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm
- - -
Acharyas S - Truth Be Known - The Christ Conspiracy
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
> godfry
> --
> "They never come up to Sector R."
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
"Scott" <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe he's trying for the [insult skipped]. Hell of if is I gave him
> a better link than his book the other day:
His book? Are you reading this thread or just jumping in with
insults without a clue?
> http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitewtc.html
> http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitet05.html
Rather odd, no mentions of jesus or christ in your 1st link. 3 mentions
of jesus and 2 mentions of christ in your 2nd link. Is that what you're
relying on for information regarding the jesus christ myth? Sheesh, no
wonder you're so deluded. Try these out for size:
ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer02.htm
- - -
Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm
- - -
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold,
by Acharaya S
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813747
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ3.htm
- - -
The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read,
edited by Tim C. Leedom
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
- - -
Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of
Christian Myth, by Burton L. Mack
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186
- - -
The Jesus Legend, by George A. Wells
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693345
- - -
The Jesus Myth, by George A. Wells
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693922
- - -
One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired
Not One True Christianity, but Many : The Truth
About Christian Origins, by Gregory J. Riley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060667990
- - -
The Christ Myth (Westminster College-Oxford
Classics in the Study of Religion), by Arthur Drews,
C. Deslisle Burns (Translator), C. Delisle Burns (Translator)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573921904
- - -
The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays
(The Freethought Library), by Joseph McCabe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879758333
- - -
Resurrection : Myth or Reality? : A Bishop's Search
for the Origins of Christianity, by John Shelby Spong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060674296
- - -
Forgery in Christianity : A Documented Record
of the Foundations of the Christian Religion,
by Joseph Wheless
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1564592251
- - -
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors,
by Kersey Graves
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0948390158
- - -
The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With
a Mystical Christ, by Earl Doherty
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
> [skipped]
>
> Scott
Pied Piper
Pax
Peter Terry <rua...@fan.net.au> wrote in message
news:95390222...@subsonic.fan.net.au...
> What a cop out...Is this all we get from self proclaiming
> master of history..Your a bloody fraud Paxo!
>
> PeterT
>
> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >What article? Perhaps you should read more that one periodical to form
> your
> >opinion. Try reading a few of the numerous books on the topic of the
> >historical Jesus, then perhaps you will be capable of knowing what you
are
> >talking about.
> >
> >
> >Pax
> >
> >
> >Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:V4gC4.16147$iP.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> Pied Piper wrote in message ...
> >> >The one giving a load of [skipped] in place of anything resembling
> >> >scholarship dealing with the Historical Jesus. Starting with
ridiculous
> >> >premises is hardly the way to find the truth.
> >>
> >> Many scholars would be insulted by your remark. Read the Newsweek
> >> article carefully, refer to skeptical scholars, and get back to me on
> your
> >> pompous falsehood. Do you have a brain? Use it. Think. Learn. Ponder.
> >> Probe. Search. Know no god and know the truth.
> >> ______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
> >> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
> >> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
> >> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
> >>
> >> The truth continues to set me free.
> >>
> >> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
> >> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
> >> ______________________________________________
> >>
> >> >
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: > "Origin of the Species",
: Nitpick, but an important one to avoid human egotism:
: "Origin of species"
Mega-nitpick: _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life_.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
Ed. Stoebenau
>.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8bgnq8$m0u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8bdcni$u33$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> godfry n. glad <god...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > Also the Roman historian Vopiscus wrote
>> > > "Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians...".)
>> >
>> > AH HA! Now were getting warmer....Can you provide a
>> > bibliographic citation for this quote?
>>
>> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer02.htm
>> Excerpt: "... Flavius Vopiscus, Vita Saturini 8,
>> though a historian of the stature of H. Gelzer regards
>> it as authentic, and Harnack is also willing to give it
>> consideration.[9] According to the context (7.6), this
>> letter comes from the writings of Phlegon[10] the [[ET 47]]
>> freedman of Hadrian. In the letter, the emperor remarks
>> that he is well acquainted with the Egyptians as frivolous
>> and avid for novelties: "Here those who worship Serapis
>> are [at the same time] Christians, and those who call
>> themselves bishops of Christ are also devotees of Serapis.
>> Here there is no synagogue leader of the Jews, no [52]
>> Samaritan, no Christian presbyter who is not also an
>> astrologer, a haruspex, and an aliptes" (8.2 ff.).[11] ..."
Continuing the paragraph...
"That the document is spurious seems to me readily
demonstrable; nevertheless, that one could falsify in such fashion is
not without significance. "
It also looks like that the original quote also does not state that
the followers of Serapis are called Christians, but that there are
people who were both Christians and Serapsians.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
Peter Terry
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. wrote in message <8bgbn9$826$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>> Above all and inspite of Christianity, it comes down to the teachings
>> of a man, of a time, whose intellect and perception of reality were
>> extremely advanced. In the main, JC was thinking models that the
>> world has only just began dealing with. If you remove the religion
>> and myth away from what this ancient had to say as roughly recorded
>> in the gospels, the change of perception is remarkable.
>
The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous
>amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and
>Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies,
>mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under
>one state religion!
snip
I've been saying this for 20 years. Its blatantly clear that Greco-Roman
Christianity so to speak, became a clever reformation and a centralisation
of a myriad of ancient sects, predominantly of pagan pedigree. This is
clearly evident from the gospels alone.
When the so called early Greco-Roman fathers (thugs) were confronted
with material that had found its way from Jewish sects pertaining to a
Christ, in the interest of the new religion they ignorantly transcribed this
material to reflect their own cultural and religious hereditary. Constantine
couldn't believe his luck, here was a religion advocating the acceptance
of slavery, the decrying of women, and instructing that its followers
turn their other cheek and obey the law.
You've missed my point Dan. Given that orthodox Christianity is made
up of many mythical and real components, when one strips away all
dogmatic and mythical overlays and is left with the spoken word of JC,
there lies a real living human with an intellect unsurpassed by a few.
Contrary to religious assertions and much in line with other peoples of
profound wisdom, the ministry of Jesus was a very quiet and subdued
affair, giving rise to easy interpolation. (Christ was a virual unknown).
I'm afraid that I dont buy into the idea that what Jesus had to say
from an intellectually perspective, was made up by secrete societies and
mystery schools. Like Paul, these early fathers were classical plagiarisers
and had neither the vision nor purpose to have invented this kind of
inspiration.
PeterT
Pied Piper
Pax
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bgnq8$m0u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8bdcni$u33$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> godfry n. glad <god...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <Ey4C4.14437$mf.1157833@bgtnsc05-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >[skipped]
> > >
> > > The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris)
> > > were called 'Christians' then!!
> > >
> >
> > This is what I think has promise and I'm looking for
> > corroborating documentary evidence...Can you provide
> > any other than this unsupported assertion?
> >
> > > Also the Roman historian Vopiscus wrote
> > > "Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians...".)
> >
> > AH HA! Now were getting warmer....Can you provide a
> > bibliographic citation for this quote?
>
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer02.htm
> Excerpt: "... Flavius Vopiscus, Vita Saturini 8,
> though a historian of the stature of H. Gelzer regards
> it as authentic, and Harnack is also willing to give it
> consideration.[9] According to the context (7.6), this
> letter comes from the writings of Phlegon[10] the [[ET 47]]
> freedman of Hadrian. In the letter, the emperor remarks
> that he is well acquainted with the Egyptians as frivolous
> and avid for novelties: "Here those who worship Serapis
> are [at the same time] Christians, and those who call
> themselves bishops of Christ are also devotees of Serapis.
> Here there is no synagogue leader of the Jews, no [52]
> Samaritan, no Christian presbyter who is not also an
> astrologer, a haruspex, and an aliptes" (8.2 ff.).[11] ..."
>
> - - -
>
> From page 115 of "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity
> Begin With a Mythical Christ", by Earl Doherty:
>
> "... Mithraism, with its baptism and cultic meal,
> was a major comptetitor to Christianity among the
> mysteries during the second and third centuries CE.
>
> Egypt supplied several cultic deities, all of them
> interrelated, like Serapsis, Osiris and Isis.
>
> Isis controlled fate and all supernatural powers.
> Those initiated into her mysteries were guaranteed
> her protection both here on earth, where they
> underwent rebirth in her service, and when they
> descended into the blissful Elysian fields after
> death (so Apuleius tels us in his famous 'novel'
> -The Golden Ass-).
>
> Her links with the slain Osiris and his ancient
> cult of death and salvation are too complex to
> to into, but their child Horus provided a model
> for the infant christ, especially in Christian
> art which copied the image of "Isis with Horus
> at her breast" and turned it into the Madonna and
> Child we still see today. ..."
>
> - - -
>
> Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
> http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm
>
> - - -
>
> Acharyas S - Truth Be Known - The Christ Conspiracy
> http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm
> ______________________________________________
>
> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
>
> The truth continues to set me free.
>
> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
> ______________________________________________
>
> >
> > godfry
> > --
> > "They never come up to Sector R."
>
>
Pied Piper
called book is in the same fairy tale realm as the Passover Plot. How about
using a source that is actually accepted by the main stream, and not some
farcical account, meant to be controversial and sell books.
Pax
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bg4db$vah$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Pied Piper
Historical Jesus. It is a joke, and is not even close to the level of
scholarship of the Jesus Seminar, or any of the accepted Jesus scholars.
This book is written with the agenda to sell books, and upon closer
inspection you clearly see that the writer is jumping to conclusions without
providing a clearly thought out line of reasoning.
He is obviously lost when speaking of Paul stating that, he is somehow
disconnected from the rest of the New Testament, and is making the statement
that Jesus is somehow connected to Pagan myth. While it is popular among
those out to discredit Christianity to use this line of reasoning Jesus is a
direct product of First century Jewish eschatological expectation, due to
the turmoil, and strife of the Roman occupation. The premise is a
ridiculous one.
Mark was based upon the "Q" document, and Luke and Matthew both borrowed
from Mark. This is a common practice of the time, as they used the same
material, but imparted there own meaning into there versions.
The Epistles were written later, and as they had at least 3 of the Gospels
at the time they were written, what would be the point?
The Epistles address the individual churches on the time, and the concerns
they had. They are letters written as correspondence between the different
Churches and give much insight into the first and second century church, and
what the concerns of the people were. They were written for a different
purpose than the Gospels, so this too is a poorly pose question as it infers
that there importance is diminished.
The Authors assumption that the whole trial and crucifixion is somehow
merely a collection of old testament writings is patently false. There are
portions of it from the Old Testament meant to draw the reader to the
conclusion that it was prophetic in nature, but the contributions are small
in the overall Passion story.
The last statement is the most ridiculous of all, as the mainstream of Jesus
scholarship has more than proven that a man called Jesus existed, so this
once again is a ploy by the author to draw people in and sell books.
The other titles listed on the same page that this book is on the site you
listed are telling as to what the general quality of this book is. They
are all meant to discredit Christianity, and are written with that agenda in
mind, thus they fail the first test of true scholarly works objectivity.
Try reading a few books that are widely accepted as authoritative on the
topic of the Historical Jesus, and not just quote a jacket cover of a book
that is not worth the paper it's printed on.
Pax
This book was written to be controversial, and when you examine the methods
by which he comes to his conclusions it is clear this is not a book that the
mainstream Jesus scholars would accept.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bg3ai$u18$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <u2CC4.7470$6S3.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Pied Piper" <p...@christ.net> wrote:
> > What article? Perhaps you should read more that one periodical to
> > form your opinion. Try reading a few of the numerous books on the
> > topic of the historical Jesus, then perhaps you will be capable of
> > knowing what you are talking about.
> >
> > Pax
>
> What Muslims believe about Jesus comes from the Qur'an-not
> the New Testament, which they consider tainted by human error.
> They also draw upon their own oral traditions ... the infant
> Jesus announces that he is God's prophet, though not God's
> son, since Allah is "above having a son" according to the
> Qur'an. ...
>
> in India there is a strong tradition that the teenage Jesus
> slipped away from his parents, journeyed across Southeast
> Asia learning yogic meditation and returned home to become
> a guru to the Jews ... To Hindus, India is the Holy Land, its
> sacred mountains and rivers enlivened by more than 300,000
> local deities. It is only natural, then, that Jesus would come
> to India to learn the secrets of unlocking his own inherent
> divinity. ...
>
> The life stories of Jesus and the Buddha are strikingly similar ...
> when Buddhists encounter Christianity they depersonalize
> the Jesus who walked this earth and transform him into a
> figure more like Buddha. ... He believed in sin, which is not
> a Buddhist concept. Jesus did not teach compassion as
> a way of removing bad karma, nor did he see life as a cycle
> of death and rebirth. In short, says the Dalai Lama, trying
> to meld Jesus into Buddha "is like putting a yak's head on
> a sheep's body." It doesn't work. ...
Dan Fake
That's an absurd statement. You keep closing your eyes and covering
your ears as if you don't want to examine anything that reveals the
mythical basis of the christian faith. Is that your position? No doubt
is permissible in your faith? No attempt at validation or examination
of evidence is permissible in your faith? Rather puts your faith in
a poor light, doesn't it?
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
>
>Pax
>
>
>.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8bgnq8$m0u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8bdcni$u33$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> godfry n. glad <god...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > In article <Ey4C4.14437$mf.1157833@bgtnsc05-
>> news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >[skipped]
>> > >
>> > > The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris)
>> > > were called 'Christians' then!!
>> > >
>> >
>> > This is what I think has promise and I'm looking for
>> > corroborating documentary evidence...Can you provide
>> > any other than this unsupported assertion?
>> >
>> > > Also the Roman historian Vopiscus wrote
>> > > "Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians...".)
>> >
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
>> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
>> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
>> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
>>
>> The truth continues to set me free.
>>
>> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
>> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >
Dan Fake
>Historical Jesus.
Is that a christian stream?
>It is a joke, and is not even close to the level of
>scholarship of the Jesus Seminar, or any of the accepted Jesus
>scholars.
Your reference to "a joke" is from ___________? Accepted
jesus scholars? Is that like, accepted by the church? You are
aware that western European-influenced cultures are dominated
by the christian faith -and- you are aware that the number of
church-influenced and church-biased and church-educated
scholars far surpasses the number free from church-influenced
brainwashing / dogma / indoctrination, aren't you?
I mean, give me a break, how "objective" can you be if you've
been threatened with burning in hell or damnation or fear of
god or excommunication or social ostracizing or financial
turmoil if you dare to divulge information harmful to the faith?
>
>This book is written with the agenda to sell books, and upon closer
>inspection you clearly see that the writer is jumping to conclusions
>without providing a clearly thought out line of reasoning.
Sad that you find anything non-christian-supporting as being
of no merit whatsoever. Clearly, faith-based delusion is your
deal, there.
>
>He is obviously lost when speaking of Paul stating that, he is somehow
>disconnected from the rest of the New Testament, and is making the
>statement that Jesus is somehow connected to Pagan myth.
More than a few scholars are of that view.
>While it is popular among those out to discredit Christianity to use
>this line of reasoning Jesus is a direct product of First century Jewish
>eschatological expectation, due to the turmoil, and strife of the Roman
>occupation. The premise is a ridiculous one.
You're mentioning one factor of many in the mythmaking milieu.
>
>Mark was based upon the "Q" document, and Luke and Matthew both
>borrowed from Mark. This is a common practice of the time, as they
>used the same material, but imparted their own meaning into there versions.
The "Q" document which some say directly contravenes the mythical jesus
of the gospels?
Q - The Hypothetical Gospel (PBS special: From Jesus to Christ)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/hypothetical.html
The Atlantic Monthly (Dec 1996) - Search for a No-Frills Jesus
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96dec/jesus/jesus.htm
Excerpt: "... according to a largely North American cadre of
biblical scholars that includes Mack, who in 1993 published
a book called The Lost Gospel containing his own Q rendition,
and James M. Robinson, the founder of the International Q
Project and a colleague of Mack's at Claremont, the teachings
of Jesus in Q hold the key to an understanding of Jesus that
is fundamentally non-Christian.
According to these scholars, the authors of Q did not view
Jesus as "the Christ" (that is, as "the anointed one," the promised
Messiah), or as the redeemer who had atoned for their sins by
his crucifixion, or as the son of God who rose from the dead.
Instead, they say, Q's authors esteemed Jesus as simply a roving
sage who preached a life of possessionless wandering and full
acceptance of one's fellow human beings, no matter how dis-
reputable or marginal. In that respect, they say, he was a Jesus
for the America of the third millennium, a Jesus with little super-
natural baggage but much respect for cultural diversity. ..."
>
>The Epistles were written later, and as they had at least 3 of the Gospels
>at the time they were written, what would be the point?
You are sadly misinformed.
>The Epistles address the individual churches on the time, and the concerns
>they had. They are letters written as correspondence between the different
>Churches and give much insight into the first and second century church, and
>what the concerns of the people were. They were written for a different
>purpose than the Gospels, so this too is a poorly pose question as it infers
>that there importance is diminished.
They were early church writings without a clue regarding the life,
death, and resurrection myths concocted in the gospels.
>
>The Authors assumption that the whole trial and crucifixion is somehow
>merely a collection of old testament writings is patently false. There are
>portions of it from the Old Testament meant to draw the reader to the
>conclusion that it was prophetic in nature, but the contributions are small
>in the overall Passion story.
You're misinterpreting the Doherty book - you've stated you won't
read the book, so your complaints are treated accordingly, as complaints
from someone covering their eyes and ears as to the contents of the
book.
>
>The last statement is the most ridiculous of all, as the mainstream of Jesus
>scholarship has more than proven that a man called Jesus existed, so this
>once again is a ploy by the author to draw people in and sell books.
Your statement is absurd in the extreme. Christ-steeped church-
following faithful folk have desperately tried to cover up the details
of the origins of the bible babble, including the most recent babble
of the new testa-myth - we've tested it - it just doesn't fly - it's a
profound guilt-ridden attempt by the early church and Roman
Empire to control and manipulate the population into subservience
and ignorance - the dark ages - which lasted for 1,000 of the most
horrific years in the history of humankind.
That's the bible you're defending.
>
>The other titles listed on the same page that this book is on the site you
>listed are telling as to what the general quality of this book is. They
>are all meant to discredit Christianity,
How does truth differ from revealing christianity as a fiction, a myth?
In my view, they're one in the same. In your view, it's christ or else.
>and are written with that agenda in
>mind, thus they fail the first test of true scholarly works objectivity.
Unlike church scholarship which bends over backwards to bow at the
feet of church authority.
>Try reading a few books that are widely accepted as authoritative on the
>topic of the Historical Jesus, and not just quote a jacket cover of a book
>that is not worth the paper it's printed on.
Widely accepted by your church? Who are these widely accepted
and objective scholars you're trying to promote and why should
I care if they're bowing at the foot of church authority? Where's
*their* objectivity?
>
>Pax
>
>This book was written to be controversial, and when you examine
>the methods by which he comes to his conclusions it is clear this
>is not a book that the mainstream Jesus scholars would accept.
By the way, any comments on the Newsweek article or are you
just going to write that off as something written to discount
church dogma?
Other links/books of interest on the jesus as son of god issue:
ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer02.htm
- - -
Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm
- - -
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold,
by Acharaya S
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813747
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ3.htm
- - -
The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read,
edited by Tim C. Leedom
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939040158
- - -
Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of
Christian Myth, by Burton L. Mack
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186
- - -
The Jesus Legend, by George A. Wells
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693345
- - -
The Jesus Myth, by George A. Wells
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693922
- - -
One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired
Not One True Christianity, but Many : The Truth
About Christian Origins, by Gregory J. Riley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060667990
- - -
The Christ Myth (Westminster College-Oxford
Classics in the Study of Religion), by Arthur Drews,
C. Deslisle Burns (Translator), C. Delisle Burns (Translator)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573921904
- - -
The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays
(The Freethought Library), by Joseph McCabe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879758333
- - -
Resurrection : Myth or Reality? : A Bishop's Search
for the Origins of Christianity, by John Shelby Spong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060674296
- - -
Forgery in Christianity : A Documented Record
of the Foundations of the Christian Religion,
by Joseph Wheless
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1564592251
- - -
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors,
by Kersey Graves
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0948390158
- - -
The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With
a Mystical Christ, by Earl Doherty
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html
Dan Fake
What source is that?
>This so called book is in the same fairy tale realm as the Passover
>Plot.
Which book?
>How about using a source that is actually accepted by the main
>stream,
Christian stream? Where is that stream, by the way?
>and not some farcical account, meant to be controversial and sell
>books.
Which book? You're replying to a post from an anonymous
poster to alt.atheism. The writer did not divulge his sources
but I'm sure I can locate them for you as I've demonstrated
time and again in this thread the vast amount of materials
questioning your jesus as son of god myth.
Pied Piper
within Jesus scholarship and is basically a farcical account based on some
atheist with an agenda to discredit Christianity, and those that truly have
shown what the scholarly approach can gleen from history.
Pax
Pied Piper
teaching a course on the Historical Jesus and he will laugh at you. If you
had a clue you would start by researching what prominent Jesus Historians
would consider good books on the topic, or go to a collge that has courses
on the Historical Jesus, you will see many use Crossan, Saunders, Bultman,
and Pregeant, and none would use the book you quote. I have already
responded in another thread on a point by point basis showing that it is
garbage, if you still insist on using it I will continue to point out it's
shortcomings.
Pax
>
Scott
> In article <2ea401e9...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>,
> acorn <mcbconN...@consultant.com.invalid> wrote:
> > You cling to logic as if it is all you can depend on.
>
> Is that a logical statement?
>
> > The trouble with logic is that it is dependent on assumption.
>
> Bzzzzt. False assumption on your part.
You know, I have a few books on philosophy, but I'll pick a quote from the
book that's most appropriate:
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy by Jay Stevenson, Ph.d.
Page 17-18
"Part of the problem [with logic] is that words can have more than one
meaning. If a word gets used in more than one way without your realizing it,
your logic can get thrown out of whack. Another problem with logic is that
you usually have to start with assumptions. This means that even if your
logic is good, your assumptions may be mistaken and can lead to false
conclusions....logic works best when people are left out of it and it is
applied only to mathematics."
page 18
Reality Check:
"Logic rarely works in real arguments outside of academic disputes, and it
*never* works in a personal relationship. Don't even bother pretending to
use logic in order to win a fight with someone who's close to you."
With ever post your obsession further digs a grave for your credibility.
All these similarities in religions are/have been studied and researched in
theological universities.
BTW there are Jesuit priests who are Zen masters. Or click on #49
http://www.hindunet.org/bookstore/top50_zen.shtml
acorn, you said what I've been thinking.
Peter Terry
Pied Piper wrote in message ...
>Dan go to any College campus with that book and speak to any professor
>teaching a course on the Historical Jesus and he will laugh at you. If you
>had a clue you would start by researching what prominent Jesus Historians
>would consider good books on the topic, or go to a collge that has courses
>on the Historical Jesus, you will see many use Crossan, Saunders, Bultman,
>and Pregeant, and none would use the book you quote.
This is exactly what you did in another thread when pressed to cough
some evidence to prove the historicity of Jesus. You posted pages upon
pages of reports from the Jesus seminars. When questioned on specific claims
you ran away, rather electing to verbal anything you didn't understand.
>I have already
>responded in another thread on a point by point basis showing that it is
>garbage, if you still insist on using it I will continue to point out it's
>shortcomings.
>
Oh really, WHERE?
PeterT
>Pax
>
>>
>
>
Peter Terry
It would appear that if information is not derived through the Westar
Institute or from Catholic apologists, Pax is struggling to surface
in deep water.
The Christian interpolation on the writings of Josephus, just go to
show that victors actually write or revise history. You can bet your
last dollar that intelligent discourse didn't existed within the vocabulary
of the early myth makers of the RC, consensus was derived purely
by intimidation and violence.
Imagine Paxo a Pharisee 2000 years ago, reacting to JC's character
assassination of the Pharisees and scribes. Say no more.............
PeterT
Pied Piper wrote in message ...
Petteri Sulonen
<d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <MEPC4.18$9w5....@feed.centuryinter.net>,
> "Scott" <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Maybe he's trying for the [insult skipped]. Hell of if is I gave him
> > a better link than his book the other day:
>
> His book? Are you reading this thread or just jumping in with
> insults without a clue?
>
> > http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitewtc.html
> > http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitet05.html
>
> Rather odd, no mentions of jesus or christ in your 1st link. 3 mentions
> of jesus and 2 mentions of christ in your 2nd link. Is that what you're
> relying on for information regarding the jesus christ myth? Sheesh, no
> wonder you're so deluded. Try these out for size:
[snip bibliography]
OK, Dan. Now, would you care to discuss which of those books you agree
with and why? They run the gamut from middle-of-the-road critical
exegetics to some pretty wild theories -- and outright propaganda. They
can't *all* be right. Instead of spouting links, would you care to
contribute some critical analysis of them?
-- Petteri
Gutta cavat lapidem non vi, sed semper cadendo. |a.a #1442. EAC, Cmsr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove spamblock and reply by e-mail, or I may not see your post.
Petteri Sulonen
<d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <04dbb546...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com>,
> Malcolm <donald.mcl...@talk21.com.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <psulonen-2403001036080001@dialup2-
> > 26.iptelecom.net.ua>, psul...@zeos.spamblock.net (Petteri
> > Sulonen) wrote:
> >
> > > [skipped]
> >
> > What annoys me about alt.atheism is that so many people
> > seem to write off two thousand years of Christian Europe as
> > a period of unremitting ignorance and atrocities. This is
> > far from being the case.
>
> Piggyback...
>
> Congrats, Petteri. You just made friends with a devout
> catholic who supports the torture/burning of witches
> because, hey, they were witches. Read Malcolm's posts
> in this thread and try to offer a counter view if you
> can, what with your supposed atheist leanings (although
> I'm not so sure of your atheism anymore - as I recall,
> Petteri, you were experimenting with eastern philosophies
> in the mystical realm the last time you spoke directly
> to the god/no god(s) issue).
So I'm not a "true atheist," eh?
Nope, I'm not experimenting with eastern philosophies in the mystical
realm. My position with regards to the existence of God is what it's been
for a quite a while -- there ain't one, as far as I can tell. If I change
my mind, you'll be the first to know. I *could* expound my views on the
metaphoric power of religious thought and language, but that probably
wouldn't interest you.
As to Malcolm, I'm afraid I can't do what you ask since the only post of
his that made it to Ukraine happens to be the one you're quoting. *That*
post seems to make sense to me. I *do* happen to agree about any number of
things with any number of religious people. If I happened to see a post of
his defending witch-burning, I probably _would_ come up with a reply.
And once again, I strongly dislike your "us vs. them" mode of thinking.
You use exactly the same language and same tactics as Christian bleaters:
spouting reams of links, propaganda, and invective, cross-posting to a
half-dozen groups, and exhibiting great intolerance of anyone who
disagrees with you. Your mind-set, visible from even the post I'm
responding to, is still "if you're not with us, you're against us".
Cheers,
Petteri Sulonen
<d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
> For jesus the man to have existed, you'd have to have some non-blind
> belief methodology to clearly point to "reality" as opposed to "myth"
> as the source for the jesus/christ/son-of-god stories. The evidence for
> "myth" as the source of the son of god stories is overwhelming,
> starting with the myths of the nomadic goat herders and ending with the
> myths of the early christian churches - they just don't fly in the
> modern age with the least bit of skepticism and critical thought put
> into play.
[snip]
Oookay. Care to present a theory that accounts for the origins of
Christianity better than the one involving a historical Jesus?
Therion Ware
(Petteri Sulonen) wrote in alt.atheism:
>In article <8bg7e8$2sf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> For jesus the man to have existed, you'd have to have some non-blind
>> belief methodology to clearly point to "reality" as opposed to "myth"
>> as the source for the jesus/christ/son-of-god stories. The evidence for
>> "myth" as the source of the son of god stories is overwhelming,
>> starting with the myths of the nomadic goat herders and ending with the
>> myths of the early christian churches - they just don't fly in the
>> modern age with the least bit of skepticism and critical thought put
>> into play.
>
>[snip]
>
>Oookay. Care to present a theory that accounts for the origins of
>Christianity better than the one involving a historical Jesus?
(Just passing through....).
No. But on the other hand I think it'd be fair to say that Jesus
Christ is a myth in the same sense that the Marquis de Sade is a myth.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
.......
HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
--
Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>
--
The alt.atheism twitlist. See: <http://www.twitlist.co.uk>
Petteri Sulonen
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip invective & stuff]
(Posted after a couple of replies to Dan's posts)
After reading most of this thread (and a bunch of your other recent posts)
it's become pretty clear to me that you no longer want to talk; you only
want to preach. I find your sermons boring and actually
counter-productive. Therefore...
<plonk> to both your aliases
(with an expiry of 6 weeks; you might return to your original more or less
sane self, after all)
So, happy preaching, missionary...
Petteri Sulonen
<tw...@eac.video2cd.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:14:53 +0200, psul...@zeos.spamblock.net
> (Petteri Sulonen) wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >In article <8bg7e8$2sf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
> ><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> For jesus the man to have existed, you'd have to have some non-blind
> >> belief methodology to clearly point to "reality" as opposed to "myth"
> >> as the source for the jesus/christ/son-of-god stories. The evidence for
> >> "myth" as the source of the son of god stories is overwhelming,
> >> starting with the myths of the nomadic goat herders and ending with the
> >> myths of the early christian churches - they just don't fly in the
> >> modern age with the least bit of skepticism and critical thought put
> >> into play.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Oookay. Care to present a theory that accounts for the origins of
> >Christianity better than the one involving a historical Jesus?
>
> (Just passing through....).
>
> No. But on the other hand I think it'd be fair to say that Jesus
> Christ is a myth in the same sense that the Marquis de Sade is a myth.
Of course, and more so -- we can, at least, find out a great deal about
the *historical* Marquis de Sade, through his writings and the
contemporary record. (His castle is pretty cool, by the way -- it's badly
ruined, over a village called Lacoste in the south of France.)
What annoys me with this topic is that the majority of people seem to
think that the proposition "Christianity was founded by the followers of a
historical Jesus" is equivalent to "Everything in the New Testament is
true".
Petteri Sulonen
ejon...@concentric.net (Earle Jones) wrote:
> In article <psulonen-240...@dialup2-26.iptelecom.net.ua>,
> psul...@zeos.spamblock.net (Petteri Sulonen) wrote:
>
> > In article <mqzC4.16776$mf.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Walker wrote in message <230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
> > > >In article <8bdvqd$kik$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
> > > ><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > (To be perfectly clear: research from 1875 is *NOT*
> > authoritative. If you use it, you *MUST* cross-check everything.
>
> *
> How about "research" from 300 AD? How reliable is that?
>
> earle
> *
There wasn't any research in the modern sense of the world at that time.
There were sources, however. I wouldn't use, say, Tacitus as an
*authority*. I'd use him as a *source*. There's a big difference.
Dan Fake
>In article <kHVC4.18781$mf.14...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>[snip invective & stuff]
>
>(Posted after a couple of replies to Dan's posts)
>
>After reading most of this thread (and a bunch of your other recent posts)
>it's become pretty clear to me that you no longer want to talk; you only
>want to preach. I find your sermons boring and actually
>counter-productive. Therefore...
>
><plonk> to both your aliases
>
>(with an expiry of 6 weeks; you might return to your original more or less
>sane self, after all)
>
>So, happy preaching, missionary...
Since your arrogant derisions are most unwelcome, I'd
encourage you to extend that period of time. If you ever
"talk" to me again, try do do so without talking down to
me and without stabbing me in the back.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>-- Petteri
Dan Fake
><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <04dbb546...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com>,
>> Malcolm <donald.mcl...@talk21.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <psulonen-2403001036080001@dialup2-
>> >
>> > What annoys me about alt.atheism is that so many people
>> > seem to write off two thousand years of Christian Europe as
>> > a period of unremitting ignorance and atrocities. This is
>> > far from being the case.
>>
>> Piggyback...
>>
>> Congrats, Petteri. You just made friends with a devout
>> catholic who supports the torture/burning of witches
>> because, hey, they were witches. Read Malcolm's posts
>> in this thread and try to offer a counter view if you
>> can, what with your supposed atheist leanings (although
>> I'm not so sure of your atheism anymore - as I recall,
>> Petteri, you were experimenting with eastern philosophies
>> in the mystical realm the last time you spoke directly
>> to the god/no god(s) issue).
>
>So I'm not a "true atheist," eh?
You've used the word agnostic to describe yourself - was
it agnostic atheist or atheist agnostic?
>
>Nope, I'm not experimenting with eastern philosophies in the mystical
>realm. My position with regards to the existence of God is what it's been
>for a quite a while -- there ain't one, as far as I can tell. If I change
>my mind, you'll be the first to know. I *could* expound my views on the
>metaphoric power of religious thought and language, but that probably
>wouldn't interest you.
>
>As to Malcolm, I'm afraid I can't do what you ask since the only post of
>his that made it to Ukraine happens to be the one you're quoting. *That*
>post seems to make sense to me. I *do* happen to agree about any number
>of things with any number of religious people. If I happened to see a post
>of his defending witch-burning, I probably _would_ come up with a reply.
They're in another catholic/atheism thread - "Why I Am Not
a Christian (long post)".
>
>And once again, I strongly dislike your "us vs. them" mode of thinking.
>You use exactly the same language and same tactics as Christian bleaters:
>spouting reams of links, propaganda, and invective, cross-posting to a
>half-dozen groups, and exhibiting great intolerance of anyone who
>disagrees with you. Your mind-set, visible from even the post I'm
>responding to, is still "if you're not with us, you're against us".
I disagree.
You've actively opposed christian fundamentalism and
actively warmed up to liberal apologetic theology. You
feel pseudo-agnostic intellectualism is "the way". I don't.
It's full of dishonesty and attempts to make those of that
camp "look good" on a "better than the rest" level, and
it does act, at times, to discourage people from seeking
the truth unless the truth is obtained through the superior
means (in your mind), "the way" of the pseudo-agnostic
intellectualists.
You have to deal with "humans on the street" on a human
level, not a pseudo-agnostic-intellectual one, if you're ever
going to succeed at communicating with them on a real and
meaningful human level, cutting through the *emotional fog*
which is at the core of their belief delusions.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
>Cheers,
Dan Fake
>>According to a source that is rejected by mainstream scholarship.
>
>What source is that?
>
>>This so called book is in the same fairy tale realm as the Passover
>>Plot.
>
>Which book?
>
>>How about using a source that is actually accepted by the main
>>stream,
>
>Christian stream? Where is that stream, by the way?
>
>>and not some farcical account, meant to be controversial and sell
>>books.
>
>Which book? You're replying to a post from an anonymous
>poster to alt.atheism. The writer did not divulge his sources
>but I'm sure I can locate them for you as I've demonstrated
>time and again in this thread the vast amount of materials
>questioning your jesus as son of god myth.
Correction - the writer did divulge his sources but he
did not specify on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis
which parts of his long post were from which book.
Dan Fake
><d_a_n_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <MEPC4.18$9w5....@feed.centuryinter.net>,
>> "Scott" <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe he's trying for the [insult skipped]. Hell of if is I gave him
>> > a better link than his book the other day:
>>
>> His book? Are you reading this thread or just jumping in with
>> insults without a clue?
>>
>> > http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitewtc.html
>> > http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitet05.html
>>
>> Rather odd, no mentions of jesus or christ in your 1st link. 3 mentions
>> of jesus and 2 mentions of christ in your 2nd link. Is that what you're
>> relying on for information regarding the jesus christ myth? Sheesh, no
>> wonder you're so deluded. Try these out for size:
>
>[snip bibliography]
>
>OK, Dan. Now, would you care to discuss which of those books you
>agree with and why? They run the gamut from middle-of-the-road critical
>exegetics to some pretty wild theories -- and outright propaganda. They
>can't *all* be right. Instead of spouting links, would you care to
>contribute some critical analysis of them?
To you? No - you <plonked> me. By the way, Petteri's
offerings on this issue in this thread were, how shall I say,
empty and devoid of anything to offer on the subject matter
other than diversion and distraction.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
Scott
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:RL4D4.17374$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Petteri Sulonen wrote in message ...
> >"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >[snip invective & stuff]
> >
> >(Posted after a couple of replies to Dan's posts)
> >
> >After reading most of this thread (and a bunch of your other recent
posts)
> >it's become pretty clear to me that you no longer want to talk; you only
> >want to preach. I find your sermons boring and actually
> >counter-productive. Therefore...
> >
> ><plonk> to both your aliases
> >
> >(with an expiry of 6 weeks; you might return to your original more or
less
> >sane self, after all)
> >
> >So, happy preaching, missionary...
>
> Since your arrogant derisions are most unwelcome, I'd
> encourage you to extend that period of time. If you ever
> me and without stabbing me in the back.
gawd damn your one to talk
Dan Fake
Well, since Petteri <plonked> me, if anyone would like to offer
*support* for the historical jesus (something oddly missing from
the discussion), please *do* try, won't you, and feel free to ask
Petteri to *support* his historical jesus (something he's offered
no details on in this entire thread up to now).
Heck, even I've offered some tidbits on a "real man" theory
based on Mack and other North American scholars' ideas that
a real non-son-of-god sage roamed the countryside and inspired
a hypothetical book called "Q" which some say may have been
the inspiration for Mark in the New Testamyth. How one would
distinguish between a mythical roving sage and a real one - that's
at the core of the debate, now isn't it, so far as the "real man"
theory as opposed to the "myth-steeped" son-of-god stuff which
has been widely debunked?
The "Q" document which some say directly contravenes the
mythical jesus of the gospels?
Q - The Hypothetical Gospel (PBS special: From Jesus
to Christ)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/hypothetical.html
The Atlantic Monthly (Dec 1996) - Search for a No-Frills Jesus
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96dec/jesus/jesus.htm
Excerpt: "... according to a largely North American cadre of
biblical scholars that includes Mack, who in 1993 published
a book called The Lost Gospel containing his own Q rendition,
and James M. Robinson, the founder of the International Q
Project and a colleague of Mack's at Claremont, the teachings
of Jesus in Q hold the key to an understanding of Jesus that
is fundamentally non-Christian.
According to these scholars, the authors of Q did not view
Jesus as "the Christ" (that is, as "the anointed one," the promised
Messiah), or as the redeemer who had atoned for their sins by
his crucifixion, or as the son of God who rose from the dead.
Instead, they say, Q's authors esteemed Jesus as simply a roving
sage who preached a life of possessionless wandering and full
acceptance of one's fellow human beings, no matter how dis-
reputable or marginal. In that respect, they say, he was a Jesus for
the America of the third millennium, a Jesus with little supernatural
baggage but much respect for cultural diversity. ..."
Dan Fake
>
>"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:RL4D4.17374$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Since your arrogant derisions are most unwelcome, I'd
>> encourage you to extend that period of time. If you ever
>> "talk" to me again, try do do so without talking down to
>> me and without stabbing me in the back.
>
>gawd damn your one to talk
Yet one more catholic attempting to bond
with Petteri - Petteri Sulonen, the catholics'
best friend in the pseudo-agnostic-intellectual
backstabbing camp (a camp with few members
as Petteri is very selective, you understand,
and it's difficult to find atheists that are willing
to warm up to catholics -and- stab a fellow
atheist in the back, all in one fell swoop).
Dan Fake
>
To attempt to use logic to dispute logic is illogical and patently
fallacious.
>
>BTW there are Jesuit priests who are Zen masters. Or click on #49
>http://www.hindunet.org/bookstore/top50_zen.shtml
So, acorn is a Jesuit priest? Odd disguise, that. Are Jesuit
priests allowed to convey that information publicly or is
zen theism the politically correct terminology? Just trying
to read the communicative tea leaves you guys are floating
our way.
>
>acorn, you said what I've been thinking.
Are you a Jesuit zen theist priest? Perhaps you'd like to
give it a try, although I'd suggest you refrain from your
"gawd damn" expletives and "cheering for backstabbing
atheists" mode. Also, cheering for zen theism or Jesuit
priests is probably not welcome.
Petteri Sulonen
<sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:RL4D4.17374$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[snip]
> > Since your arrogant derisions are most unwelcome, I'd
> > encourage you to extend that period of time. If you ever
> > "talk" to me again, try do do so without talking down to
> > me and without stabbing me in the back.
>
> gawd damn your one to talk
<sigh>
It's a shame really. I quite liked Dan some time ago; he has an
earnestness and genuine good intentions that are rather rare. It's been
tragic to see him slide down the greased slope to self-righteousness. I
find especially ironic his admonishments to "think, ponder, etc." given
that he himself is clearly pretty short in the critical reading
department. (Hardly surprising, considering that he was brought up a fundy
-- those skills do take a while to acquire.)
I also very much resent his "group-think". An atheist criticizing him is
"stabbing him in the back". An atheist who doesn't want to go preach to
the heathens is neglecting his duty to bring enlightenment to the
benighted masses. It's "if you're not with us, you're against us" all over
again.
I also don't recall being "derisive" towards Dan -- well, most of the
time, anyway. Condescending, maybe -- it's my way of reacting to some of
his pretty cheap slurs thrown in my general direction. (It works great,
too, it seems.) Arrogant? Also maybe. Feel free to take me down a peg or
two if that happens -- I'll try to learn!
I hope he calms down, takes a drive in that Mustang of his (it was a
Mustang, wasn't it?) and continues reading and thinking instead of
preaching. Knowing something of his Usenet history, I think six weeks
might do it.
Earle Jones
<sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
> "Logic rarely works in real arguments outside of academic disputes, and it
> *never* works in a personal relationship. Don't even bother pretending to
> use logic in order to win a fight with someone who's close to you."
>
> With ever post your obsession further digs a grave for your credibility.
*
Is it your role to judge people?
Don't you think that's God's role?
Don't you mean "every" post?
earle
*
Therion Ware
Yes, I know La Coste quite well (almost as well as I know Roissy, erm,
airport). The point about Alphonse, of course, is that through some
"mythic" process He transcended mere humanity and became a God, to
some at least. Yet, a sober reading of his life and works does not
justify the mythic status he holds.
How did this happen? Because of the existent documentation, I think it
may be possible to determine how, and perhaps that understanding may
have more general applications. ....
yep - never aim small.....
Somehow he moved from being a man to being a God. As you say, there's
a considerable historical record, and I think, because of this it may
be possible to discern the process that gave rise to the, erm,
transfiguration.
>What annoys me with this topic is that the majority of people seem to
>think that the proposition "Christianity was founded by the followers of a
>historical Jesus" is equivalent to "Everything in the New Testament is
>true".
Indeed. One understands that Charles V university (Paris) has a dept
of myths and rumours - perhaps we could ask for a guest lecture...?!
Oh and if you find any good netadmin jobs in the old CCCP, do let me
know!
Petteri Sulonen
<tw...@eac.video2cd.co.uk> wrote:
No doubt. I'm only cursorily familiar with both (I've read Justine and
some other stuff, as well as some notes on his biography) but he certainly
seems like a fascinating character. I don't know if I agree with Camille
Paglia's assessment of him as one of the greatest philosophers in Western
thought, though...
> How did this happen? Because of the existent documentation, I think it
> may be possible to determine how, and perhaps that understanding may
> have more general applications. ....
>
> yep - never aim small.....
>
> Somehow he moved from being a man to being a God. As you say, there's
> a considerable historical record, and I think, because of this it may
> be possible to discern the process that gave rise to the, erm,
> transfiguration.
Funny, that's one of the things that I'm interested in here. It's
fascinating how many characters have become "gods" here to various groups
of people. Taras Shevchenko, of course, but also Ivan Mazepa, Bohdan
Khmelnytsky, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, even Nestor Makhno. (Lenin and Stalin
are a bit out of vogue already, thank goodness.) I'll probably end up
writing a paper about it...
> >What annoys me with this topic is that the majority of people seem to
> >think that the proposition "Christianity was founded by the followers of a
> >historical Jesus" is equivalent to "Everything in the New Testament is
> >true".
>
> Indeed. One understands that Charles V university (Paris) has a dept
> of myths and rumours - perhaps we could ask for a guest lecture...?!
Good idea.
> Oh and if you find any good netadmin jobs in the old CCCP, do let me
> know!
Um... would you be willing to work for about $200 a month? 'Cause that's
what netadmins get paid here, if they're lucky! Do you speak any Russian?
Dan Fake
><sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
>
>> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:RL4D4.17374$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>[snip]
>
>> > Since your arrogant derisions are most unwelcome, I'd
>> > encourage you to extend that period of time. If you ever
>> > "talk" to me again, try do do so without talking down to
>> > me and without stabbing me in the back.
>>
>> gawd damn your one to talk
>
><sigh>
>
>It's a shame really. I quite liked Dan some time ago; he has an
>earnestness and genuine good intentions that are rather rare. It's been
>tragic to see him slide down the greased slope to self-righteousness.
>I find especially ironic his admonishments to "think, ponder, etc."
>given that he himself is clearly pretty short in the critical reading
>department. (Hardly surprising, considering that he was brought up
>a fundy -- those skills do take a while to acquire.)
>
>I also very much resent his "group-think". An atheist criticizing him is
>"stabbing him in the back". An atheist who doesn't want to go preach
>to the heathens is neglecting his duty to bring enlightenment to the
>benighted masses. It's "if you're not with us, you're against us" all
>over again.
Pure delusion on your part. You're in a group of 1 ... well, OK, you
and your new catholic friends, Scott and Malcolm ... let's make that
a group of 3 consisting of a near-atheist who adores liberal theism,
a catholic Jesuit-wannabe, and a catholic witch-hunter.
>
>I also don't recall being "derisive" towards Dan -- well, most of the
>time, anyway. Condescending, maybe -- it's my way of reacting to some
>of his pretty cheap slurs thrown in my general direction. (It works great,
>too, it seems.) Arrogant? Also maybe. Feel free to take me down a peg
>or two if that happens -- I'll try to learn!
>
>I hope he calms down, takes a drive in that Mustang of his (it was
>a Mustang, wasn't it?) and continues reading and thinking instead
>of preaching. Knowing something of his Usenet history, I think six
>weeks might do it.
Hahahaha. I've been doing the same exact thing ever since I began
posting to alt.atheism in January, '99, so don't think for one minute
that your latest attempts at censorship are going to faze me in the
least.
Driving my hot red 2000 Mustang GT convertible while jammin'
to Trent Reznor, yep, not-a-care in the world ... (-:
Dan Fake
>
>.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. wrote in message <8bgbn9$826$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <95390631...@subsonic.fan.net.au>,
>>"Peter Terry" <rua...@fan.net.au> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Above all and in spite of Christianity, it comes down to the teachings
>>> of a man, of a time, whose intellect and perception of reality were
>>> extremely advanced. In the main, JC was thinking models that the
>>> world has only just began dealing with. If you remove the religion
>>> and myth away from what this ancient had to say as roughly recorded
>>> in the gospels, the change of perception is remarkable.
>>
>>The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous
>>amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and
>>Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies,
>>mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under
>>one state religion!
>
>snip
>
>I've been saying this for 20 years. Its blatantly clear that Greco-Roman
>Christianity so to speak, became a clever reformation and a centralisation
>of a myriad of ancient sects, predominantly of pagan pedigree. This is
>clearly evident from the gospels alone.
>
>When the so called early Greco-Roman fathers (thugs) were confronted
>with material that had found its way from Jewish sects pertaining to a
>Christ, in the interest of the new religion they ignorantly transcribed this
>material to reflect their own cultural and religious hereditary. Constantine
>couldn't believe his luck, here was a religion advocating the acceptance
>of slavery, the decrying of women, and instructing that its followers
> turn their other cheek and obey the law.
>
>You've missed my point Dan. Given that orthodox Christianity is made
>up of many mythical and real components, when one strips away all
>dogmatic and mythical overlays and is left with the spoken word of JC,
>there lies a real living human with an intellect unsurpassed by a few.
>Contrary to religious assertions and much in line with other peoples of
>profound wisdom, the ministry of Jesus was a very quiet and subdued
>affair, giving rise to easy interpolation. (Christ was a virtual unknown).
>
>I'm afraid that I don't buy into the idea that what Jesus had to say
>from an intellectually perspective, was made up by secrete societies and
>mystery schools. Like Paul, these early fathers were classical plagiarisers
>and had neither the vision nor purpose to have invented this kind of
>inspiration.
Thanks, Peter Terry, for trying to weigh the evidence and assess
the likelihood of there being a real man surrounded by myths
as compared to a mythical and fictitious character surrounded
by myths.
So, your evidence for a real jesus man, surrounded by myths,
is that only a real jesus could have said the things attributed to
him? Where's the logic in that? How tough is it to make up a
dialogue about a fictitious human being?
Is it your claim that a real undocumented man (no personal
witnesses wrote anything about a real man that survives to
this day, per scholarly evidence regarding the historical record
and the time in which the supposed real man would have to
had been on the planet), have his words passed down through
numerous self-serving mythspinners/cults, and somehow come
out in the end, surrounded by and mixed with numerous other
myths of the time, hundreds of years later, sanctified by the
catholic church and made the official religion of the Roman
Empire by Constantine, with a vast number of contravening
writings (myths, no doubt, but based on your real man theory,
who's to say...?) burned, -yet- accurately portraying a real
man who just happened to be surrounded by lies and myths
because _________ (after all, who would really care about
such a man if there weren't any myths to deify him)?
Hmmmm - a theory that a hippie template (real man) said
things accurately (to some undefined extent) passed down
over decades, nay, over centuries, but his wisdom was
mixed with myths and superstition and manipulated by
book-burning liars and a corrupt empire, for personal gain /
power / riches / control?
Interesting theory, but next to impossible to justify being that
there's little reason to accept that a real man had any part to
play in the myth-steeped documents (most of which were
destroyed by the "winner" of the time).
Once you've accepted the rational explanations for the
mythmaking, you're left aghast at the way in which churches
and religions have manipulated and twisted the myths to mix
love/hate philosophies to control/scare people into blind
belief.
Oh well, thanks again for your unique perspective, Peter
Terry. I look forward to your perspective after you've had
time to weigh the evidence presented in the substantial
books and web sites I've detailed in this thread; one more
(a variety of views which many reading this thread have
already scanned but quite a few, especially the catholics
who have had the patience and tolerance to continue
reading this thread <there may be a few>, may not be
familiar with) ...
Historicity of Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
>PeterT
Peter Walker
Petteri Sulonen <psul...@zeos.spamblock.net> wrote:
>
>What annoys me with this topic is that the majority of people seem to
>think that the proposition "Christianity was founded by the followers of a
>historical Jesus" is equivalent to "Everything in the New Testament is
>true".
There is an equal distance between those of us who are skeptical of a
historical Jesus, and the claim that there were no historical
prototypes for him.
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | WWW: http://spacsun.rice.edu/~pww
BAAWA Master Squire | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
Peter Walker
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Peter Walker wrote in message <230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>>>
>>>First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
>>>of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
>>>for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
>>>flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
>>>get people to buy into their phony myth.
>>
>>Sorry, Dan, but that isn't what I saw. Half or more of the one-star
>>reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
>>shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
>>information or documentary reference.
>
>They are mistaken.
They may or may not be - that is not the point. The point is that *you*
deliberately tried to mislead us as to the nature of the objections of
those who poorly reviewed the book, claiming without qualification that
it was done from prior confessional prejudice.
This is simply not the case. Not everyone disagrees with your favorite
books, or you, because they're "trapped in a Christian world-view". You
should really try to recognize this before you continue your
newly-acquired habit of demonizing your fellow atheists for, in your
view, doctrinal impurities.
>The referenced book is a compilation of materials
>with details on authors/source documents. The particular material
>referenced in this thread come from "The World's Sixteen Crucified
>Saviors", published by the Truth Seeker Co., New York, 1875, by
>Kersey Graves.
A book, I note, whose methodology I have seen heartily disputed in
academic circles; expecially in my readings in Zoroastrianism /
Mithraism. 19th century writers about foreign myth tended to poorly
understand the myth in the first place, and then imprint their own
culture and cultural values (namely Victorian Christianity) upon it.
This is precisely why Petteri said that a book from this era must be
cross-referenced.
Scott
"Petteri Sulonen" <psul...@zeos.spamblock.net> wrote in message
news:psulonen-250...@dialup2-14.iptelecom.net.ua...
> In article <Bp5D4.88$9w5....@feed.centuryinter.net>, "Scott"
> <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
>
> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:RL4D4.17374$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Since your arrogant derisions are most unwelcome, I'd
> > > encourage you to extend that period of time. If you ever
> > > "talk" to me again, try do do so without talking down to
> > > me and without stabbing me in the back.
> >
> > gawd damn your one to talk
>
> <sigh>
>
> It's a shame really. I quite liked Dan some time ago; he has an
> earnestness and genuine good intentions that are rather rare. It's been
> tragic to see him slide down the greased slope to self-righteousness. I
> find especially ironic his admonishments to "think, ponder, etc." given
> that he himself is clearly pretty short in the critical reading
> department. (Hardly surprising, considering that he was brought up a fundy
> -- those skills do take a while to acquire.)
OK living here in the bible belt that tells me a lot including this thing
for catholics. I've been tempted to blame this on the american public school
system.
Scott
Scott
> Scott wrote in message ...
> So, acorn is a Jesuit priest? Odd disguise, that. Are Jesuit
> priests allowed to convey that information publicly or is
> zen theism the politically correct terminology? Just trying
> to read the communicative tea leaves you guys are floating
> our way.
<shhh see below>
> >
> >acorn, you said what I've been thinking.
>
> Are you a Jesuit zen theist priest? Perhaps you'd like to
> give it a try, although I'd suggest you refrain from your
> "gawd damn" expletives and "cheering for backstabbing
> atheists" mode. Also, cheering for zen theism or Jesuit
> priests is probably not welcome.
So now your into reading tea leaves???
<sarcasm> Oh no, dan, I'm a catholic atheist.
Scott
"Earle Jones" <ejon...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:ejones12-250...@ts020d32.sjc-ca.concentric.net...
HAY EARLE!!! if'en that's da best ya kin do, you'll jest kep on a heckling
from the upper deck cuz yea ain't good enough ta get out ther on the play'en
field son.
Dan Fake
>In article <mqzC4.16776$mf.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Walker wrote in message <230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>>>>
>>>>First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
>>>>of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
>>>>for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
>>>>flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
>>>>get people to buy into their phony myth.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Dan, but that isn't what I saw. Half or more of the one-star
>>>reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
>>>shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
>>>information or documentary reference.
>>
>>They are mistaken.
>
>They may or may not be - that is not the point. The point is that *you*
>deliberately tried to mislead us as to the nature of the objections of
>those who poorly reviewed the book, claiming without qualification that
>it was done from prior confessional prejudice.
You're impressing yourself again. I deny your accusation.
>
>This is simply not the case. Not everyone disagrees with your favorite
>books, or you, because they're "trapped in a Christian world-view".
>You should really try to recognize this before you continue your
>newly-acquired habit of demonizing your fellow atheists for, in your
>view, doctrinal impurities.
Et tu Petre?
Peter accuses me of demonizing fellow atheists. I deny that
accusation. Petteri is the single bloke that's been stabbing me in
the back, and I responded in kind to his long efforts to smear my
good name. If I were you, Peter, I'd carefully examine my own
house before throwing stones.
If you want to credit atheists for half of the 1 star reviews of that
book, The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read, I'd have
to disagree with your assessment. For those that haven't read the
book, it's a compilation of authors and works with skepticism and
free thinking the key commonality among the authors - a few are
listed here:
William Edelen, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Michael Baigent,
a review by William B.Lindley of a book by bishop John Spong,
Dan Barker, Delos McKown, Joseph McCabe, Steve Allen, Robert
Green Ingersoll.
That book, The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read,
spurred me to my 14 month (and counting) efforts to discover the
truth about religions, science, philosphy, history, and the legal system.
If I were to add a review to www.amazon.com it would be a stellar
review so we disagree about the contents of the book.
The controversial 8 page segment on jesus is just one part of a
thorough and widespread criticism of religiosity - disagreeing with
that one segment does not invalidate the 50+ other segments of the
book on such topics as Religious Illiteracy, Zoroastrianism, Horus,
Astro-Theology, Reason and Religion, Islam, Jewish Humanism,
Chief Seattle's Views, the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Bible, Non-
existent Prophecies, Noah's Flood, Bible Morality, Locating
Jesus in Time, Space and Archaeology, and ... more, much
much more.
Petteri stabbed me in the back and <plonked> me - if you want to
preach to someone about treating fellow atheists decently, 1st off,
try it your own self, and 2nd off, talk to you good friend Petteri as
it seems you two guys are mirror images of one another in more
ways than one.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>
Earle Jones
<sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
*
Just answer the questions, waterboy.
earle
*
Scott
LOL thank for the laugh
1. Sure. Or should I argue otherwise with the judge the next time I'm called
for jury duty?
2. see # 1
3. Yes I meant "every".
Scott
> In article <QVpD4.165$9w5.1...@feed.centuryinter.net>, "Scott"
> <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
>
> > "Petteri Sulonen" <psul...@zeos.spamblock.net> wrote in message
> > news:psulonen-250...@dialup2-14.iptelecom.net.ua...
> > > In article <Bp5D4.88$9w5....@feed.centuryinter.net>, "Scott"
> > > <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Since your arrogant derisions are most unwelcome, I'd
> > > > > encourage you to extend that period of time. If you ever
> > > > > "talk" to me again, try do do so without talking down to
> > > > > me and without stabbing me in the back.
> > > >
> > > > gawd damn your one to talk
> > >
> > > <sigh>
> > >
> > > It's a shame really. I quite liked Dan some time ago; he has an
> > > earnestness and genuine good intentions that are rather rare. It's
been
> > > tragic to see him slide down the greased slope to self-righteousness.
I
> > > find especially ironic his admonishments to "think, ponder, etc."
given
> > > that he himself is clearly pretty short in the critical reading
> > > department. (Hardly surprising, considering that he was brought up a
fundy
> > > -- those skills do take a while to acquire.)
> >
> > OK living here in the bible belt that tells me a lot including this
thing
> > for catholics. I've been tempted to blame this on the american public
school
> > system.
>
Oh, I was using a little tongue-in-cheek thing there but...
Fundamentalists usually disdain Catholicism. Protestant friends have told me
how much the Catholics would get *trashed* at their gatherings. And many
seem to live to try and convert Catholics to their religion. Tell you what,
pop on over to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic and see first hand what
I mean. (Then maybe sometime go to one of the Protestant news groups and
compare the number of Catholics there trying to convert Protestants.) The
only thing that appears different between the fundies' and Dan's effort over
here is their message. <t-i-c> I think maybe it's a force of habit for him
to try and convert Catholics.
Scott
Peter Walker
The catholic group has been removed; I fully intend to keep this within
the family.
In article
<9kqD4.18837$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Dan Fake
<dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Peter Walker wrote in message <260320000904401735%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>>In article <mqzC4.16776$mf.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Walker wrote in message <230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>>>>>
>>>>>First off, if you go to this web site, note the absurd lies
>>>>>of the christers who have reviewed this book - just look
>>>>>for the single stars and you'll begin to get a feel for how
>>>>>flawed their faith is and how desperate they are to lie to
>>>>>get people to buy into their phony myth.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, Dan, but that isn't what I saw. Half or more of the one-star
>>>>reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
>>>>shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
>>>>information or documentary reference.
>>>
>>>They are mistaken.
>>
>>They may or may not be - that is not the point. The point is that *you*
>>deliberately tried to mislead us as to the nature of the objections of
>>those who poorly reviewed the book, claiming without qualification that
>>it was done from prior confessional prejudice.
>
>You're impressing yourself again. I deny your accusation.
Let's see, Dan.
Here are the one-srar reviews of _The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You
To Read_, over at Amazon.com:
#1
Of course Jesus isn't in the Dead Sea Scrolls! They are copies of the
Old Testament! (Jesus is the New Testament) This is a great example of
someone taking a true statement and putting an outrageous claim to it.
What I want to know is how is that different than what the author is
claiming the Christians do? Get real! Think! Read some C. S. Lewis for
an understanding of how the similarities in Christian and Pagan
religions work together to show the truth.
#2
I picked up this book as a work to refute New Testament accounts. I
found mostly half truths and out and out lies. The history of Krishna
being crucified (P185) is laughable and not factual. In fact I found a
lot of opininon and quotes strung together that on the surface sound
reliable, and compelling; but, given time even a grade school child
could find the holes in Leedom's compilation of nonsense. While the
list of contributor's sounds excellent, I find it noteworthy that "The
Book" contains no bibliography or works cited list. Whereas Lee
Strobel's book The Case for Christ has six and one half pages of
references used for his book, authored by those on both pro and con
sides of Christianity. This book is hardly worth the effort or time,
save your money.
#3
This is one of the worst critiques of religion available. There are
many very good books on the market that make good critiques, but this
is not one of them. If I belonged to a church, I would hope that my
opponents would read this book instead of any others, since it is the
least competent, and the least likely to raise any serious challenges.
#4
If Christians want an effective apologetic for their faith, they could
pay unbelieving pseudo-scholars such as the editors of this joke of a
book to continue their attack on the Church. This book caricatures
Christians and its arguments are fallacious and have long been
debunked. I would be embarrassed to be associated with this kind of
work if I were an atheist so sloppy it is. They like to point out
Christian governments killing people (known gangsters in Byzantium for
example) but conveniently do not mention the MILLIONS of believers who
have died at the hands of atheist governments in this century. Thr
Trinity a fourth century invention? Where are these guys getting their
history, from a cereal box? Theophilus explicitly mentions the Trinity
by that title in 180 AD.
Deloss McKown's article is a real whopper! He spends most of his time
railing against "fundagelicals" while using a series of fallacious
arguments. This book is nothing but axe-grinding.! I doubt that these
men would ever be so sloppy in their work in other fields. It is their
hatred of the Church that blinds them. Anyone impressed with this work
is likely not remotely familiar with Christianity but rather a
caricature.
#5
The research is poor or non existant. The theories are based on
speculation with no science to back up anything. A waste of time and
money
#6
The parts that contested Christian beliefs & where it pointed out
Biblical errors where taken out of context & didn't use the rules
established in the arts & sciences of Biblical interpretation. This
book
is bogus, a waste of time & money
What do these say?
#1 Criticizes a nonsequitur from the book; we wouldn't be able to guess
this respondant's religion, save for the reference to CS Lewis.
#2 and #3 are clearly from non-Chistians.
#4 seems to be from a Christian, but he criticizes the book based on
its content and selective bias.
#5 could be wither a believer or a non-believer; but he does criticize
the book on the basis that it is purely speculative.
#6 is probably a believer (one can tell by the "out of context"
defense), but one can't be sure.
My statement is correct: out of the six one-star responses, two are
definitely from non-Christians, three are probably from Christians, and
one is indeterminate. My statement: "Half or more of the one-star
reviews seemed to be from unbelievers, chastizing the book for its
shoddy research, rampant bias, and total lack of bibliographical
information or documentary reference." is only incorrect in the "or
more" part. But certainly at least a third fit my description.
Clearly, your assertion that "look for the single stars and you'll
begin to get a feel for how flawed their faith is and how desperate
they are to lie to get people to buy into their phony myth" is
deceptive at best, and a case could be made that *it* is the outright
lie.
Dan, one's tactics when pursuing a cause are more important than the
cause itself. Why should anyone give you any credibility if you're
going to engage in this kind of patently dishonest demagoguery? How
does it advance the cause of non-belief?
>>This is simply not the case. Not everyone disagrees with your favorite
>>books, or you, because they're "trapped in a Christian world-view".
>>You should really try to recognize this before you continue your
>>newly-acquired habit of demonizing your fellow atheists for, in your
>>view, doctrinal impurities.
>
>Et tu Petre?
There you go again, Dan. Anyone who criticizes your tactics is a
betrayer, stabbing you in the back. It never occurs to you that we call
you on what we see as problematic precisely *because* we like you (or,
perhaps, after your response to differences in opinion with us, change
that to *liked*). We're the enemy. Petteri is cozying up to catholics.
I'm "trapped in a Christian world-view" despite being an atheist more
than ten years longer than you.
And allow me to remind you that you are no Caesar, and I was *never*
your lieutenant. Keep the megalomaniacal delusions of persecution to
yourself, thank you.
>Peter accuses me of demonizing fellow atheists.
To whom are you speaking? The gallery? Dan, nor are we on the floor of
the Roman Senate.
>I deny that accusation.
And yet validate it in this post, and in the "So long, Dan" thread.
>Petteri is the single bloke that's been stabbing me in
>the back,
Petteri did no such thing. First of all, everything is out here in the
open, no operating in back whatsoever. Secondly, he did as I have done:
take you to task on specific tactics you have used in your all-imporant
crusade to disabuse the theistic masses of their delusions.
Are you telling us that as long as what you're doing is for the cause,
you should be above criticism?
>If I were you, Peter, I'd carefully examine my own
>house before throwing stones.
And now, the implicit threat. What are you going to do, Dan, drum me
out of *.atheism? Prove to the gallery that I'm not a "true atheist"?
Will you misrepresent my opinions on the reliability with which we
percieve reality and claim I'm a solipist again? Are you going to
mockingly shout "This pole isn't real! This table isn't real! It's all
in our heads", as if that had anything to do with the point I was
making? Are you going to storm off mad when I reply "If I wanted to
have my poinions misrepresented and mocked for a strawman position I
don't hold I'd be debating a fundie" because in your "us vs. them"
siege mentality, all you're capable of hearing is that I called you a
fundie - something I never said or implied?
Sorry, Dan, I think you've done your worst already.
>If you want to credit atheists for half of the 1 star reviews of that
>book, The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read, I'd have
>to disagree with your assessment.
The evidence is right there to see. Two non-Christians, one
indeterminate. It is possible, apparently, to criticize this book
without being a Christian trying to "get people to buy into a phony
myth".
>Petteri stabbed me in the back
He did no such thing.
>and <plonked> me -
Because your conduct towards him was uncivil at best. But because of
your siege mentality, you couldn't read between the lines to see how
much it hurt him to plonk you.
>if you want to
>preach to someone about treating fellow atheists decently, 1st off,
>try it your own self,
I have eight years on the *.atheism groups to stand on for the record
of my treatment of fellow unbelievers. What do you have, Dan?
>and 2nd off, talk to you good friend Petteri as
>it seems you two guys are mirror images of one another in more
>ways than one.
Despite the fact that Petteri and I have disagreed on numerous issues,
such as the existence of an absolute morality, the level of tolerance
and polemical honesty of Catholics, I consider this to be anything but
an insult.
>The truth continues to set me free.
Then why do you sound like a prisoner rattling his cup against the bars
of his cell?
You know, Dan, when we first met, I found myself repeatedly defending
your zeal to others who thought you a little over-fanatical. "Sure, he
acts like a guy who's just realized he's been the victim of a con job,
but give him time." I sincerely liked you. You had the spunk of someone
who would advance atheism. Sure, your views on parental rights w.r.t.
religious education were a little quirky, but I was ready to attribute
it to you recent discovery that you had been robbed of four decades by
the Christian superstition. We felt you'd mellow out with a few more
years, after the pain of being robbed subsided.
Apparently I was wrong. You *are* a fanatic: you *have* redoubled your
effort while losing your aim.
Now, it is with extraordinary pain and anguish that I place you in my
kill-file. Petteri may have known and liked you via this venue, but
you're someone I learned to know and like *in* *person*. And, despite
your claims to the contrary in another thread, your conduct *has*
degenerated in the last few weeks. I can no longer sit by and watch it
without saying something.
I have been watching your recent posts, and have decided that not are
you not only not advancing atheism, you are working against it, by
forcing our most likely recruits - liberal Christians - into a
defensive mode, by casting us in the most negative light, by being the
boogey-man preachers like to rail against. You troll and spam other
newsgroups and are every bit as intolerant of different opinions,
whether from theists or atheists, as the run-of-the-mill
fundamentalist. You cling to books and arguments without regard to
their merit, simply because they advance "the cause" - and discredit
the cause in the process. You have nothing to say that I want to hear.
<plonk>
Petteri Sulonen
-- Petteri
Petteri Sulonen
<sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > Um... what thing for Catholics?
>
> Oh, I was using a little tongue-in-cheek thing there but...
> Fundamentalists usually disdain Catholicism. Protestant friends have told me
> how much the Catholics would get *trashed* at their gatherings. And many
> seem to live to try and convert Catholics to their religion. Tell you what,
> pop on over to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic and see first hand what
> I mean. (Then maybe sometime go to one of the Protestant news groups and
> compare the number of Catholics there trying to convert Protestants.) The
> only thing that appears different between the fundies' and Dan's effort over
> here is their message. <t-i-c> I think maybe it's a force of habit for him
> to try and convert Catholics.
Ah, OK. I haven't noticed any particular picking on Catholics, though, but
then again I haven't really looked for that.
Petteri Sulonen
<p...@spacsun.rice.edu> wrote:
> The catholic group has been removed; I fully intend to keep this within
> the family.
>
> In article
> <9kqD4.18837$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Dan Fake
> <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
> >Petteri is the single bloke that's been stabbing me in
> >the back,
>
> Petteri did no such thing. First of all, everything is out here in the
> open, no operating in back whatsoever. Secondly, he did as I have done:
> take you to task on specific tactics you have used in your all-imporant
> crusade to disabuse the theistic masses of their delusions.
... and thirdly, I have never been his lieutenant either. How can you stab
someone in the back if you're not behind him in the first place?
[snip]
> Despite the fact that Petteri and I have disagreed on numerous issues,
> such as the existence of an absolute morality, the level of tolerance
> and polemical honesty of Catholics, I consider this to be anything but
> an insult.
<flattered> Thanks -- and likewise.
[By the way, the discussion on morality petered out just as it was getting
interesting -- maybe your last post never made to my server here in
Ukraine?] ;-)
[snip]
> I have been watching your recent posts, and have decided that not are
> you not only not advancing atheism, you are working against it, by
> forcing our most likely recruits - liberal Christians - into a
> defensive mode, by casting us in the most negative light, by being the
> boogey-man preachers like to rail against. You troll and spam other
> newsgroups and are every bit as intolerant of different opinions,
> whether from theists or atheists, as the run-of-the-mill
> fundamentalist. You cling to books and arguments without regard to
> their merit, simply because they advance "the cause" - and discredit
> the cause in the process. You have nothing to say that I want to hear.
This *is* turning into a love-fest: this expresses my motivations rather
well -- only that I'm not very concerned about winning recruits. I'm more
interested in simply promoting understanding and tolerance between theists
and atheists. The point in "educating theists," IMO, is to get them to see
that atheism is not "evil" or dangerous -- and that atheists are normal,
decent human beings. But of course it wouldn't break my heart if someone
_did_ de-convert every once in a while!
And, to Dan, if you're reading this -- I *do* hope you come to your
senses. I did genuinely like you and enjoy your posts, when you were still
willing to listen, not only preach. Please, calm down and think about it!
Peter Walker
Petteri Sulonen <psul...@zeos.spamblock.net> wrote:
>[By the way, the discussion on morality petered out just as it was getting
>interesting -- maybe your last post never made to my server here in
>Ukraine?] ;-)
Expired from my server before I had a chance to respond (like several
threads I've left hanging). I'm in no huge rush to reprise them.
Petteri Sulonen
<p...@spacsun.rice.edu> wrote:
> In article <psulonen-270...@dialup3-31.iptelecom.net.ua>,
> Petteri Sulonen <psul...@zeos.spamblock.net> wrote:
>
> >[By the way, the discussion on morality petered out just as it was getting
> >interesting -- maybe your last post never made to my server here in
> >Ukraine?] ;-)
>
> Expired from my server before I had a chance to respond (like several
> threads I've left hanging). I'm in no huge rush to reprise them.
Happens to me all the time. If you'd care to discuss moral philosophy, I'd
be honored to participate -- and I'd try be a bit more constructive than I
was that time round. A belated apology for my tone, it was uncalled for. I
don't apologize for the content, though! :-)
Dan Fake
>
>[skipped Peter's personal attacks]
>
><plonk>
Bye - may your self-love carry you
forward and may your arrogance
not harm you. Heard from god lately?
Of course, you claimed that a reference
on murders around the world supports
your position on guns, but you never
provided that reference. Hmmmm...
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
G & G
Peter Walker wrote in message <260320002241268414%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>
>The catholic group has been removed; I fully intend to keep this within
>the family.
>
>In article
><9kqD4.18837$9M1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Dan Fake
><dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Walker wrote in message <260320000904401735%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
>>>In article <mqzC4.16776$mf.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter Walker wrote in message
<230320001553598506%p...@spacsun.rice.edu>...
<snip and extremely caring and carefully written post>
>Now, it is with extraordinary pain and anguish that I place you in my
>kill-file. Petteri may have known and liked you via this venue, but
>you're someone I learned to know and like *in* *person*. And, despite
>your claims to the contrary in another thread, your conduct *has*
>degenerated in the last few weeks. I can no longer sit by and watch it
>without saying something.
>
>I have been watching your recent posts, and have decided that not are
>you not only not advancing atheism, you are working against it, by
>forcing our most likely recruits - liberal Christians - into a
>defensive mode, by casting us in the most negative light, by being the
>boogey-man preachers like to rail against. You troll and spam other
>newsgroups and are every bit as intolerant of different opinions,
>whether from theists or atheists, as the run-of-the-mill
>fundamentalist. You cling to books and arguments without regard to
>their merit, simply because they advance "the cause" - and discredit
>the cause in the process. You have nothing to say that I want to hear.
Peter, I have come to exactly the same conclusion about Dan and I find it
very distressing. I put him in my killfile about a week ago or so and,
although I thought it was necessary, found it quite difficult to do. I
used to rather look forward to his interesting questions and thoughts.
Then, when I could no longer ignore that he seems to cross-post for no
reason other than to upset folks, I began to question his purpose. If
anything, he seems to be getting more hostile and belligerent towards anyone
who disagrees with him. He seems to think disagreement with him is some
sort of evil. I also tried to give him some credit because of his
background but now just feel that, since he has consistently been unwilling
to be self-critical, I can no longer give him my support. I think he is
doing harm to the rest of the atheists in quite a similar manner to how
fundies put more liberal christians in a bad light.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
"G & G" <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>[skipped]
>
> I think he is doing harm to the rest of the atheists in quite
> a similar manner to how fundies put more liberal christians
> in a bad light.
A common theme here between Petteri-Peter-G & G appears to be
support for liberal christians. I would have to say that the
strong language and positioning you gentlemen have taken says
something about your insecurity regarding your support for
so-called liberal christianity. I know Peter's connections
to liberal christianity. Petteri appears to be quite accepting
of catholicism and pseudo-agnostic-intellectualism and yours
is on the border between agnosticism and atheism although I'm
unaware of your connections to liberal christianity.
All of you have censorship and personal attacks against me on
your minds - hence, your <plonk city> responses since y'all
obviously have strong feelings supporting [pick one] "liberal
christianity - pseudo-agnostic-intellectual - atheists who
keep their mouths shut (around liberal christians)" camps.
Jesus Christ? Sheesh - who would have thought that you guys
would get so upset about Jesus Christ? Is that the linchpin
of liberal christianity - the need to have some man as a basis
for blind faith, even if the man was just a man? You remove
that, and the whole pile of cards comes tumbling down?
If so, the whole liberal christian delusion isn't worth the time
of day in the first place.
If you happen to run across this post sometime in the future,
please provide information regarding your acceptance of liberal
christianity (if that's your position) as good for humanity due,
I suppose you feel, to its intellectualizing of blind belief
(a concept which I find adds nothing to the blind belief parade
other than the veneer of interest in non-blind belief aspects
of life, trying to seduce intellectuals without a clue into
acquiescence to their dogma).
Note - Your efforts (Peter/Petteri/G & G) to try to turn me
into a pariah for speaking my mind speak volumes regarding
the unworthiness of your positions. With all due disrespect,
I remain
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Morat
".d.a.n.f.a.k.e." wrote:
>
> In article <e1MD4.10985$QJ3.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "G & G" <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> >[skipped]
> >
> > I think he is doing harm to the rest of the atheists in quite
> > a similar manner to how fundies put more liberal christians
> > in a bad light.
>
> A common theme here between Petteri-Peter-G & G appears to be
> support for liberal christians. I would have to say that the
> strong language and positioning you gentlemen have taken says
> something about your insecurity regarding your support for
> so-called liberal christianity. I know Peter's connections
> to liberal christianity. Petteri appears to be quite accepting
> of catholicism and pseudo-agnostic-intellectualism and yours
> is on the border between agnosticism and atheism although I'm
> unaware of your connections to liberal christianity.
>
> All of you have censorship and personal attacks against me on
> your minds - hence, your <plonk city> responses since y'all
> obviously have strong feelings supporting [pick one] "liberal
> christianity - pseudo-agnostic-intellectual - atheists who
> keep their mouths shut (around liberal christians)" camps.
>
First off, ignoring you is not censorship. You're perfectly free to
espouse your views. They have just decided they aren't worth listening to.
> Jesus Christ? Sheesh - who would have thought that you guys
> would get so upset about Jesus Christ? Is that the linchpin
> of liberal christianity - the need to have some man as a basis
> for blind faith, even if the man was just a man? You remove
> that, and the whole pile of cards comes tumbling down?
>
> If so, the whole liberal christian delusion isn't worth the time
> of day in the first place.
>
> If you happen to run across this post sometime in the future,
> please provide information regarding your acceptance of liberal
> christianity (if that's your position) as good for humanity due,
> I suppose you feel, to its intellectualizing of blind belief
> (a concept which I find adds nothing to the blind belief parade
> other than the veneer of interest in non-blind belief aspects
> of life, trying to seduce intellectuals without a clue into
> acquiescence to their dogma).
>
> Note - Your efforts (Peter/Petteri/G & G) to try to turn me
> into a pariah for speaking my mind speak volumes regarding
> the unworthiness of your positions. With all due disrespect,
> I remain
I speak only for myself when I say I don't *mind* liberal christianity.
They don't try to invade the schools, they don't want to burn people at the
stake, and other than being overly smug at times, don't interfere in my life
on bit. I don't *care* what anyone believes in, as long as they keep those
beliefs to themselves. I *do* care about attempts to force these beliefs on
others. You seem to be the one with a problem with what other people
believe. Feel free to go convert the Christians. No one will stop you.
IMHO, however, you're as rude and obnoxious as those idiots who pester me in
coffeeshops wanting to know if I've found Jesus. And just as poor a
representative of your beliefs as they are.
> ______________________________________________
>
> Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
> (Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
> maxing out this one and only experience we all know
> and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
>
> The truth continues to set me free.
>
> Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
> http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
> ______________________________________________
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is tied to the deepest feelings people have. The love
that arises from that stewing pot is the sweetest and strongest, but
the hate is the hottest, and the anger is the most violent."
-- Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Fake
to Peter Walker (or so I've been told - Peter does
get around):
Morat wrote in message <38DFF806...@icsi.net>...
>
>[skipped]
>IMHO, however, you're as rude and obnoxious
Actually, that's not a humble opinion - arrogant, yes, humble
no.
>as those idiots who pester me in
>coffeeshops wanting to know if I've found Jesus.
And the high and mighty Morat has thus spoken. Calling
me rude and obnoxious and claiming to have a humble
opinion and calling believers who talk to you about jesus
idiots? Sheesh. Maybe you are better off remaining silent
about believers - I don't have your disjointed view of
christians - check the record - I *always* try to direct
my views towards their blind belief - not towards them
personally - if I err in that regard, I have fallen short of
that which I try to abide by.
Get your story straight next time.
>And just as poor a
>representative of your beliefs as they are.
Can't handle being asked about jesus? Did they
attack you or something? What's your problem?
Don't you have the good sense to present an
adequate or decent counter-view? Suggestions:
What's a jesus? That always throws them for
a loop. Look at them quizzically with an open
expression of not knowing what a jesus is.
-or-
How do you know there even was a jesus?
Not likely that they know as much as you on
the subject, so you can enjoy educating them.
-or-
You can remain silent and try to guilt-trip people
who have the courage to say what thy think into
silence, with rude and obnoxious accusations or
idiot labels.
The choice is yours - choose wisely.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 + Freethinker #2b + Humanist #2b2
(Atheist+ who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and
maxing out this one and only experience we all know
and share on this earth, at this time, in this life)
The truth continues to set me free.
Top 300 Books for Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555397957
______________________________________________
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Religion is tied to the deepest feelings people have. The love
>that arises from that stewing pot is the sweetest and strongest, but
>the hate is the hottest, and the anger is the most violent."
> -- Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind
>------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocating silence towards christians and this is your
sig? Hmmmm, you must be scared of them.
Petteri Sulonen
[piggyback due to killfiling -- Morat's bits snipped]
> ".d.a.n.f.a.k.e." wrote:
It's strange that Dan accuses me (and others) of "personal attacks" so
much. I don't recall attacking him personally. I do remember criticizing
his tactics. I really don't know why I'm doing this, but the post did
catch my eye through a reply -- and actually *does* contain personal
attacks, so, what the hell, here goes.
And <provisional de-plonk> in case you want to talk civilly. You *do* make
a direct question in this post -- I'm interpreting this as an invitation
to talk.
[snip]
> > A common theme here between Petteri-Peter-G & G appears to be
> > support for liberal christians. I would have to say that the
> > strong language and positioning you gentlemen have taken says
> > something about your insecurity regarding your support for
> > so-called liberal christianity. I know Peter's connections
> > to liberal christianity. Petteri appears to be quite accepting
> > of catholicism and pseudo-agnostic-intellectualism and yours
> > is on the border between agnosticism and atheism although I'm
> > unaware of your connections to liberal christianity.
[1] What do you mean by "supporting" liberal Christians?
[2] Check Mickey's a.a list. I'm listed as "agnostic atheist". What do you
*think* my attitude towards "pseudo-agnostic-intellectualism" is?
[3] For my views on "liberal Christianity" (including but certainly not
restricted to the Catholic variants thereof) see below.
[4] To what strong language do you refer?
> > All of you have censorship and personal attacks against me on
> > your minds - hence, your <plonk city> responses since y'all
> > obviously have strong feelings supporting [pick one] "liberal
> > christianity - pseudo-agnostic-intellectual - atheists who
> > keep their mouths shut (around liberal christians)" camps.
I do not recall making "personal attacks" on you. If I have, please accept
my apology in advance (or feel free to dig up the references and humiliate
me; I can apologize afterwards too). Speaking only for myself, my "strong
feelings" are against fanaticism of all kinds: the "all or nothing,"
"victory or death," "us versus them," "the Truth sets me free" mentality.
Most of the religious fanatics on a.a are so boring that I don't bother
with them; I just more or less quietly plonk them. I bother with you, Dan,
precisely because our world-views overlap -- and because I used to quite
like you. Moreover, you're giving atheism a bad name with your growing
fanaticism.
As to "censorship," you're being just plain silly. None of us have tried
"censoring" you (e.g., sending cancelbots after your posts, forging,
sporging or spamming in order to drown your posts in nonsense etc.). Free
speech means that you're free to say what you think, and *WE'RE* free to
say what we think about it! You're free to offend, we're free to take
offense! We're also free to ignore you, if we feel like it -- and *say*
that we're ignoring you.
> > Jesus Christ? Sheesh - who would have thought that you guys
> > would get so upset about Jesus Christ? Is that the linchpin
> > of liberal christianity - the need to have some man as a basis
> > for blind faith, even if the man was just a man? You remove
> > that, and the whole pile of cards comes tumbling down?
Who's "upset" about Jesus Christ? I just happen to think that a considered
examination of the evidence shows that a historical Jesus is likely. (I
also think that such an examination shows that we can know very very
little about who he actually was, but that's another thread entirely. In
any case I find the question historically interesting.)
I'm really not qualified to comment on liberal Christianity, as I'm not a
Christian, liberal or otherwise.
> > If so, the whole liberal christian delusion isn't worth the time
> > of day in the first place.
Worth to who?
> > If you happen to run across this post sometime in the future,
> > please provide information regarding your acceptance of liberal
> > christianity (if that's your position) as good for humanity due,
> > I suppose you feel, to its intellectualizing of blind belief
> > (a concept which I find adds nothing to the blind belief parade
> > other than the veneer of interest in non-blind belief aspects
> > of life, trying to seduce intellectuals without a clue into
> > acquiescence to their dogma).
Now that was twisted, malicious misinterpretation of my position if I ever
saw one. I have no quarrel with liberal Christianity (or liberal Islam,
liberal Hinduism, liberal Judaism) or any other liberal religion. Why?
Because they don't try to force their beliefs down my throats, and they
generally try to find a way to live peacefully in this world filled with
people with conflicting interests and world-views -- an attitude that I
like very much, and like to think I share. If a person's beliefs or
convictions do not adversely affect my life, I don't see any reason to
oppose them. I do enjoy discussing world-views with such people -- not
least because they're capable of discussing them in a constructive spirit,
with mutual respect and without resorting to preaching or conversion
attempts. For the same reason, I strongly oppose fanaticism -- includind
fanatic "free-thinkerism".
Another reason is simple fairness. If *they* don't try to convert *me*, it
would be rude and unfair of *me* to try to convert *them* (and would cause
them to run a mile, too). I don't choose my friends based on religion or
lack thereof.
As I've said before, I think it would be better to try to get them to
*know* us, in order to dispel the myth of atheists as fanatic
anti-religious church-burners. Which, incidentally, YOU are doing your
damnedest to promote -- albeit unintentionally, I hope. This is the
fundamental reason I've taken exception to your actions.
I guess that makes me a liberal atheist.
> > Note - Your efforts (Peter/Petteri/G & G) to try to turn me
> > into a pariah for speaking my mind speak volumes regarding
> > the unworthiness of your positions. With all due disrespect,
> > I remain
Yes, your disrespect has been duly noted. That's one of the reasons I
dislike fanatics -- they disrespect everyone who is not "with them".
As to your accusation, I deny it. Frankly, it smacks of paranoia. We (I
think I can speak for the three of us here!) have not tried and are not
trying to turn you into a pariah. We have simply criticized your actions
and your attitude. Where are the posts saying "Don't listen to Dan, he's
an idiot" or "Dan Fake: Blinkered Philistine" or "Twit Nomination: Dan
Fake?" There aren't any! We are *NOT* trying to drum you out of a.a, turn
you into a pariah, or any such thing. We're just disagreeing with you!
Now, speaking for myself: I *am* trying to (1) get you to see that you're
alienating a helluva lot of atheists and agnostics AS WELL AS those
(liberal) theists who could fairly easily be shown that we're not out to
get them and therefore are deserving of the same respect accorded to
people of other world-views/religions and (2) show the lurkers on this
thread that all atheists are not fanatics that you have become. And,
although hope of this is fading fast, I *am* hoping to get back on a.a the
Dan Fake whom I liked -- the one with the questioning mind, the
enthusiastic search for new ideas, the capacity of modifying his positions
when presented with a good argument, the willingness to engage in
give-and-take debate, and the genuine good intentions and human warmth. I
do not like this inflexible dogmatic slinging around groundless
accusations that has taken his place.
And, as a sort of a postscript... Dan, I think you have completely failed
to respond to any of the *substantive* criticism leveled at your posts by
me, Peter, and others.
For example, what did you say when we pointed out the flaws in your
bibliography?
What did you say when Peter pointed out your dishonesty with regards to
the Amazon book reviews of one of the books in it?
What was your response to my suggesting that your tactics could use some
improvement?
If you like, I can dig up the references. I don't think you'd be proud of
them, though.
If you *do* wish to engage in a real discussion, I suggest you address
some of these points, for starters. And...
...
I think you owe us an apology.
Sincerely wishing you all the best, (and with all due respect! ;-) )
-- Petteri
PS. Dan, I consider this discussion important enough not to want to miss
it due to technical glitches: if your perceived invitation to talk was
real, please mail me a copy of your reply; instructions in .sig. I'm also
quite willing to take this completely onto e-mail, if you prefer a private
discussion to a public one.