Omnitimidity: 4th divine attribute (was Re: Tautology)
Max Webb
I still consider it relevant to T.O., since that issue often
comes up here.]
|What was once thought as concrete evidence for the supernatural
|was subsequently shown not to be concrete evidence for the supernatural.
|I believe I'm asserting (again) that any occurrence in this world is
|likely to be proven to result from natural causes.
I don't really care whether you tag something as supernatural
or not; if you have a creed that alleges itself to have profound
and specific effects on peoples lives, and that only the
OneTrueCreed can do this, then you have a testable proposition.
I outline my scientific research proposal in a little more detail
in my next post; I hope Warren responds to it this time,
rather than merely asserting the existence of such a thing is
impossible, because he has defined the possibility away.
Christianity can only keep itself clear from falsifiability by severing
all contact with our real lives. (you sound as if you agree with some
of that statement.)
: C.S. Lewis argued that faith was not belief in the absence of evidence,
: but rather (once being convinced by the evidence) continuing to believe
: despite adversity, persecution, and the absence of direct sensory
: confirmation. How is this interpretation barred by this verse?
| I would argue that the "absence of evidence" and "the absence
|of direct sensory confirmation" are the same thing. Furthermore,
Bollocks, Sir! (with a nod to the scat squad). The next time a
creationist pops in this group and states that since we haven't
seen monkeys evolve into people, that that belief is just as
religious a faith as his own, are you going to agree with him?
|knowing who Lewis is but not which of his writings is being referenced,
|what does he call "evidence"?
I believe the book is "mere christianity" [it has been a while since
I looked at it, though]. Some of the evidence he cites is of the same
historical variety (if not the same quality) as we use to explore the
history of our own species. If you claim that that evidence can't be
scientific there, then you undercut your own participation in this
group.
|: | Just _scientific_ investigation. Real life also encompasses
|: |moral behavior,
|: Not a belief about the way the world is, but rather
|: what should be. Not relevant.
|
|We observe society. We observe that many different cultures
|have proscriptions against killing other members of the same culture.
|Why is that? And is there more to it than "just" human behavior?
Are you asking "how"? If so, one might as well ask why Nations
_permit_ killing in defense of their borders. The answer is that
those that do not, are not stable (ie. get conquered). Nations that
permit indiscriminate killing within their borders are unstable by
virtue of being unbearable for people to live in. The mechanisms
by which change comes are investigable.
If you are asking "why", I refer you to "Ethics Without God" by
Kai Nielsen. I never really considered the divine command theory
of morality to be convincing, and all other theories of morality
are also available to atheists. Not really relevant to this
discussion, I think, so I'll not pursue it further unless you
insist. I contend that the synthetic, descriptive propositions here
are also investigable or meaningless.
|[ ... ] I would argue that our internal philosophic
|"filter" may be altered by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As
|another example, C.S. Lewis changed his philosophic bent fairly
|drastically.
An approach to life is not all descriptive, synthetic, propositions.
The decision to love is not a descriptive synthetic proposition.
So what? I only address that part of religion that is. None of what
you describe in this paragraph is unique to christianity or religion.
|: |and self-awareness in our thoughts.
|: It is straightforward to scientifically study the properties of
|: human awareness. See Dennett, Churchland, and others.
|Very true. But we are constantly self-aware; we talk to
|ourselves -- we process. This process is integral to decision-making
|and is uniquely personal (and very much real life).
I do not claim that all of what we think about are descriptive
propositions. I merely claim that that part which is, is testable
or meaningless. See the difference?
I wrote
: [...] Each condemns all of the others,
^^^^^^^^ I certainly do not accuse Jim in particular
of judgementalism. I probably got carried away here.
: and conflicts over doctrine are never resolved, except by schism,
: excommunication, torture or jihad.
Nor do I accuse Jim of excommunication, torture, or jihad. I
do think that schism is a mildly dishonest way of pretending
that a question has been settled or even addressed, and that
you may have indulged in that on several levels. In individuals,
a peccadilloe; in cultures, potentially very serious.
|Well, not everybody does. Judgement isn't mine.
Hey, I don't want it either!
: | Jim Acker
: | jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Max G. Webb
--
(mo...@techbook.com)
Max Webb
T.O., since that issue often comes up here.]
experimental program to test something you surely consider
supernatural (salvation); You didn't really respond to it, as
near as I can tell. I'd like to drop the more circular portions
of our conversation to date, and focus on a research proposal:
Me:
|I remind you that you once wrote to me of "4 spiritual laws" (which I
|took to refer to the contents of a pamphlet by Bill Bright of the IVCF).
|Riddle: what is unrepeatable, unpredictable, and obeys "laws"?
Warren:
| Once again you seem to confuse articles of faith with
|"supernatural" forces. Roulette wheels produce random,
|unpredictable, results, but they still obey the laws of
|physics. I admit the comparison is weak, especialy since the
|"supernatural" could be caused by a consciousness.
Do your laws state how people 'might' be saved, if the dice comes up
right? Or do they claim to rely on infallible promises that will
reward any honest seeker? Weak comparision indeed. The physics
laws are laws because they _restrict_ the probability distribution
of the result in your example; your religious claims are quite a
bit stronger.
And according to the Book of James, your salvation had better have
specific discernable effects, or it is not salvation. That is enough
for testability.
As to your definition of "concrete evidence" - I understood it all
along, I was just trying to convince you you weren't using that
word as it is defined in english - that was the point of the
citation of Thomas's visitation. Likewise for your nonstandard
definition of supernatural. Since your "supernatural" boundaries
are dependent on the observer, the tag is not of much interest.
Particularly once we show that events commonly regarded as super-
natural are not under your definition.
Research Proposal:
Conversion, Theological Content, and Alcoholism
Goal of study is to determine to what extent the use of the
4 Spiritual Laws helps/hinders recovery from alcoholism via
self-help groups such as AA. It is asserted by devotees
that the saved are freed from bondage to sin, and they
count this as sin. It is asserted by the Bible that J.C is
the only one that can do this, rival religions can't.
Dependent variables:
(via interviews, presentations) whether 4 Spiritual Laws
were presented; whether subject assented to them; amount
of specifically christian content of subjects personal
theology. Voice stress analysis might give good data)
Independent variable:
Mean time between relapse, over time, is certainly objectively
testable (urine tests).
I claim that psychology is a science, and that this study could be
made as tight and as scientific as any psychological study can be.
(Parenthetically, I am advised by AA members that specific theological
content is pretty much irrelevant, that any higher power will do. I am
advised by SOS members and RET practitioners that theism is itself
unnecessary. Null hypothesis would be confirmed by these observations)
Other independent variables could be honesty, surreptitiously
observed; good samaritanism, surreptitiously observed, ... and
so on. If you believe homosexuality a sin, one could evaluate
whether salvation really "liberates" you in some way (data is in,
and it says *NOT*) In fact, although I can't find the cite, I have
also heard of such studies being conducted and finding a small negative
corelation between religion and honesty. But that is beside the
point, which is that the studies can be done.
You see, Warren, it is not enough to merely _define_ the supernatural
as having no testable effect on our lives; to preserve the purity of
your faith, untouchable by any evidence, Christianity must fail
to address the human concerns it most claims to. That is the critique
of the modernist/liberal approach to evidence by fundamentalists,
and I find it telling, even as an atheist.
Warren Vonroeschlaub
Webb) writes:
>Me:
>|I remind you that you once wrote to me of "4 spiritual laws" (which I
>|took to refer to the contents of a pamphlet by Bill Bright of the IVCF).
>|Riddle: what is unrepeatable, unpredictable, and obeys "laws"?
>
>Warren:
>| Once again you seem to confuse articles of faith with
>|"supernatural" forces. Roulette wheels produce random,
>|unpredictable, results, but they still obey the laws of
>|physics. I admit the comparison is weak, especialy since the
>|"supernatural" could be caused by a consciousness.
>
>Do your laws state how people 'might' be saved, if the dice comes up
>right? Or do they claim to rely on infallible promises that will
>reward any honest seeker? Weak comparision indeed. The physics
>laws are laws because they _restrict_ the probability distribution
>of the result in your example; your religious claims are quite a
>bit stronger.
> And according to the Book of James, your salvation had better have
> specific discernable effects, or it is not salvation. That is enough
> for testability.
Okay, I don't like this analogy, but for our purposes it seems to work.
Let us say that I set up a genetic algorithm to schedule classes. i run the
program for a while, and occasionally pick out those schedules that "look good"
for preferential treatment by the GA above and beyond what the evaluator
function does. I do this consciously, and with care since I can really mess up
the process if I pick the wrong one.
Now, alife in the GA may be aware that there is some selection going on.
Those schedules that are selected by me may seem to follow no pattern, but that
is only because there is an intelligence guiding the selection (me).
>As to your definition of "concrete evidence" - I understood it all
>along, I was just trying to convince you you weren't using that
>word as it is defined in english - that was the point of the
>citation of Thomas's visitation. Likewise for your nonstandard
>definition of supernatural.
Well, the definition of concrete evidence seems reasonable to me. This is the
first time I've ever had trouble with it, and I'm still not sure why you would
call something "concrete evidence" when it was rather subjective. My definition
of "concrete evidence" is just something for which one answer is significantly
better than any other plausable explanation.
As for my definition of supernatural, I would question how something open to
scientific inquiry could not be considered natural. In any case, supernatural
is a rather wishy-washy word.
> Since your "supernatural" boundaries
>are dependent on the observer, the tag is not of much interest.
>Particularly once we show that events commonly regarded as super-
>natural are not under your definition.
Ah, no, you misunderstood. I do believe the resurection was supernatural. I
do believe ESP, if it exists, is supernatural. You have misconstrewed what I
believe of events, and what I would believe of events if they were open to
scientific inquiry (unless scientific inquiry showed them to be impossible).
The studies can be done. And what would they conclude? Even a correlation of
1 would merely show that the 4 spiritual laws have this effect. It would not in
any way say that they are therefore supernatural.
>You see, Warren, it is not enough to merely _define_ the supernatural
>as having no testable effect on our lives; to preserve the purity of
>your faith, untouchable by any evidence, Christianity must fail
>to address the human concerns it most claims to. That is the critique
>of the modernist/liberal approach to evidence by fundamentalists,
>and I find it telling, even as an atheist.
Double good grief. Why are you still harping on this? there is a big
difference between saying that the supernatural is not open to scientific
examination and saying that all claims of Christianity are unfalsifiable.
If you want to argue this, forget it. I see no point since this isn't my
position. You seem to have taken my stance on one point as a springboard for
attacking your own predjudices about Christians. Sorry, I'm not interested.
Now, if you want to continue the discussion on whether or not one can find
concrete evidence for the supernatural, I'm all ears. to begin with, what are
you definitions for "concrete evidence" and "supernatural"?
| __L__
-|- ___ Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
| | o | kv...@iastate.edu
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/| ___ Math Department
| |___| 400 Carver Hall
| |___| Ames, IA 50011
J _____
James G. Acker
: [This thread is about falsifiability, where and why it applies.
: I still consider it relevant to T.O., since that issue often
: comes up here.]
:
: |What was once thought as concrete evidence for the supernatural
: |was subsequently shown not to be concrete evidence for the supernatural.
: |I believe I'm asserting (again) that any occurrence in this world is
: |likely to be proven to result from natural causes.
:
: I don't really care whether you tag something as supernatural
: or not; if you have a creed that alleges itself to have profound
: and specific effects on peoples lives, and that only the
: OneTrueCreed can do this, then you have a testable proposition.
Amazingly enough, I think I got into virtually the same
argument with the Kalkii. I think I maintained there that you would
discover profound and specific effects (not solely due to Christianity),
and if you attempted to investigate them in a scientific sense, your
investigation is properly termed "psychology". If you then determine
that a religious belief causes certain definable psychological
effects, you are left with uncertainty -- you can define effects but
not cause. I.e. the measurable cause is the religious belief, the
unmeasurable quantity is whether the belief is put in place by
our minds or a supernatural intervention.
: I outline my scientific research proposal in a little more detail
: in my next post; I hope Warren responds to it this time,
: rather than merely asserting the existence of such a thing is
: impossible, because he has defined the possibility away.
Up next. Looks like Warren responded, too.
: Christianity can only keep itself clear from falsifiability by severing
: all contact with our real lives. (you sound as if you agree with some
: of that statement.)
I think my answer above addresses this. There comes a point
at which faith may be connected to a supernatural "interaction".
How do you find that connection? How do you "prove" it was or was not
caused supernaturally? Wouldn't it be necessary to get down to the
very base causes of (oh no, this word again) "consciousness"?
: : C.S. Lewis argued that faith was not belief in the absence of evidence,
: : but rather (once being convinced by the evidence) continuing to believe
: : despite adversity, persecution, and the absence of direct sensory
: : confirmation. How is this interpretation barred by this verse?
:
: | I would argue that the "absence of evidence" and "the absence
: |of direct sensory confirmation" are the same thing. Furthermore,
:
: Bollocks, Sir! (with a nod to the scat squad). The next time a
: creationist pops in this group and states that since we haven't
: seen monkeys evolve into people, that that belief is just as
: religious a faith as his own, are you going to agree with him?
No. There's no absence of evidence regarding anthropoid
evolution -- I can get direct sensory confirmation of the existence
of anthropoid fossils. I read "direct sensory confirmation" to mean
seeing Christ with our eyes, hearing him speak with our ears, having Him
touch us with His hands. Furthermore, I don't think reading the Bible
is direct sensory confirmation, either.
: |knowing who Lewis is but not which of his writings is being referenced,
: |what does he call "evidence"?
:
: I believe the book is "mere christianity" [it has been a while since
: I looked at it, though]. Some of the evidence he cites is of the same
: historical variety (if not the same quality) as we use to explore the
: history of our own species. If you claim that that evidence can't be
: scientific there, then you undercut your own participation in this
: group.
Thanks. I've got that book, and I'll try to check the argument.
Speculating, Lewis may cite the many instances of martyrdom for the cause
of Christ as historical evidence. I think that can be scientifically
investigated (or at least historically verified, take your pick).
[deletions on the roots of moral behavior]
: |[ ... ] I would argue that our internal philosophic
: |"filter" may be altered by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As
: |another example, C.S. Lewis changed his philosophic bent fairly
: |drastically.
:
: An approach to life is not all descriptive, synthetic, propositions.
: The decision to love is not a descriptive synthetic proposition.
: So what? I only address that part of religion that is. None of what
: you describe in this paragraph is unique to christianity or religion.
But (ideally) Christians should practice a different approach to
life and the way in which they love others. What if someone (let's say
the author of "Amazing Grace") experiences a 180-degree turnaround in
their life-orientation (for lack of a better word)? To what do we
credit that turnaround? Now, certainly such instances are not
unique to Christianity, but the question remains.
: |: |and self-awareness in our thoughts.
: |: It is straightforward to scientifically study the properties of
: |: human awareness. See Dennett, Churchland, and others.
: |Very true. But we are constantly self-aware; we talk to
: |ourselves -- we process. This process is integral to decision-making
: |and is uniquely personal (and very much real life).
:
: I do not claim that all of what we think about are descriptive
: propositions. I merely claim that that part which is, is testable
: or meaningless. See the difference?
I think so. But I go back to my asteroid impact example:
we can certainly experience an asteroid impact (hopefully not by
being underneath it), and examine its aftereffects. And the
mechanisms which brought it to collision with Earth are well-known.
Yet we can never test the proposition "God/deity of choice caused the
asteroid to impact that place at that time." As we can never test
the proposition "Joe Schmoe received an indwelling of the Holy Spirit
while attending a tent revival meeting preached by the Reverend
Jonas Nightingale, and as a result, quit his drinking, married Lily Sue
and become a prominent used-car salesman." All of the effects
are measurable -- the causes are out of reach.
: I wrote
: : [...] Each condemns all of the others,
: ^^^^^^^^ I certainly do not accuse Jim in particular
: of judgementalism. I probably got carried away here.
:
: : and conflicts over doctrine are never resolved, except by schism,
: : excommunication, torture or jihad.
:
: Nor do I accuse Jim of excommunication, torture, or jihad. I
: do think that schism is a mildly dishonest way of pretending
: that a question has been settled or even addressed, and that
: you may have indulged in that on several levels. In individuals,
: a peccadilloe; in cultures, potentially very serious.
:
: |Well, not everybody does. Judgement isn't mine.
However, I see a denominational schism that is noteworthy.
Not all denominations have the same "us or them" attitude as the most
vocal and visible (i.e. Southern Baptist convention).
: Hey, I don't want it either!
:
: : | Jim Acker
: : | jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
:
: Max G. Webb
Acker again
asia z lerner
>
> No. There's no absence of evidence regarding anthropoid
>evolution -- I can get direct sensory confirmation of the existence
>of anthropoid fossils. I read "direct sensory confirmation" to mean
>seeing Christ with our eyes, hearing him speak with our ears, having Him
>touch us with His hands. Furthermore, I don't think reading the Bible
>is direct sensory confirmation, either.
>
That raises an interesting question - do you beleive in Napoleon?
James G. Acker
Yes. For one thing, I've been in his tomb. I find it hard
to believe that such an edifice would have been constructed for an
empty casket. I've also read accounts that Napoleon was "raised
from the dead" -- nope, he stayed dead -- in order to investigate
the theory that he was poisoned by arsenic. Plus, hair samples of
Napoleon existed such that arsenic assays could be performed. I have
confidence that Nap's body would be in the casket if we opened it again,
and would be willing to test it.
Furthermore, I've seen statues and portraits of Napoleon, all
having a distinct resemblance and therefore probably modeled on the
same personage. The portrayals of Christ diverge much more
substantially (however, I still believe in Christ, based on more
than just reading the Bible).
However, I take your point to imply that because I can't
meet Napoleon, I shouldn't believe in him. Remember, I think that
the virtue of Christian faith is that it exists in the absence of
direct sensory confirmation. Therefore, my belief in Napoleon's
existence is just as virtuous, and it is supported by even more
indirect evidence that I can access directly by my senses.
You asked.
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
asia z lerner
You have not answered - at least not to my satisfaction. Everything that
you mentioned - tomb, peices of hair, shroud, stone were body laid,
exist in the case of Jesus. And as for the size of the tomb -
you might as well ask - could all those cathedrals be built to
commemorate a person that never lived? Thus you have access through
your senses to plenty of indirect evidence the Jesus existed.
There are two points of difference that I can see :
1) different portraits - but that is not surprising, seeing that
Jesus was never painter during his lifetime.
2) supernatural details. Still, you might treat the notion that
an unknown Corsican corporal became the conqueror of Europe as
somewhat supernatural. I can certainly see people in 1000 years saing
"corporal to Emperor? - it must be one of those nation-founding myths".
Thus I see no major difference between your faith in the existance of
Jesus and your faith in the existance of Napoleon.
Jon Livesey
>
> You have not answered - at least not to my satisfaction. Everything that
> you mentioned - tomb, peices of hair, shroud, stone were body laid,
> exist in the case of Jesus.
Actually, not a single one of these statements is corrrect, but
never mind. If people want to "believe" in Jesus, they can
perfectly well take some piece of wood and "believe" that it's
a bit of the Cross, etc.
> And as for the size of the tomb - you might as well ask - could
> all those cathedrals be built to commemorate a person that never
> lived?
And the answer is clearly "yes". Look at how many temples the
Greeks built to their Gods.
> Thus you have access through your senses to plenty of indirect
> evidence the Jesus existed.
All I see so far is that you are pretty confused about the topic.
> There are two points of difference that I can see :
>
> 1) different portraits - but that is not surprising, seeing that
> Jesus was never painter during his lifetime.
>
> 2) supernatural details. Still, you might treat the notion that
> an unknown Corsican corporal became the conqueror of Europe as
> somewhat supernatural. I can certainly see people in 1000 years
> saing "corporal to Emperor? - it must be one of those nation-
> founding myths".
Then you don't know very much about History, do you, or perhaps
you've been getting your history from Hollywood, as Americans
tend to do. Napoleon didn't go from corporal to Emperor in one
step. He was a famous general and poltician long before he was
Emperor.
> Thus I see no major difference between your faith in the existance
> of Jesus and your faith in the existance of Napoleon.
I do. There is a great deal of secondary evidence for the
existence of Napoleon, and almost none for the existence of Jesus.
What little there is for Jesus is asserted by his fans, whereas
even people who couldn't stand Napoleon admitted who he was.
jon.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Sep10.2...@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@quads.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>>
>> You have not answered - at least not to my satisfaction. Everything that
>> you mentioned - tomb, peices of hair, shroud, stone were body laid,
>> exist in the case of Jesus.
>
>Actually, not a single one of these statements is corrrect, but
>never mind.
Excuse my - the stone from the tomb is in Jerusalem, Shroud is in Turin,
Various bodyparts and pieces of cross in churches throught the world.
If people want to "believe" in Jesus, they can
>perfectly well take some piece of wood and "believe" that it's
>a bit of the Cross, etc.
Just as you beleive that whatever is buried in the Invalides is the
real Napoleon.
>
>> And as for the size of the tomb - you might as well ask - could
>> all those cathedrals be built to commemorate a person that never
>> lived?
>
>And the answer is clearly "yes". Look at how many temples the
>Greeks built to their Gods.
>
YOU suggested that the size of Napoleon's tomb is the proof of his
existence. You are retracting the assertion, I take it.
>
>[...]
>Then you don't know very much about History, do you, or perhaps
>you've been getting your history from Hollywood, as Americans
>tend to do.
This is an insult! I protest! I am not and have never been
an American.
Napoleon didn't go from corporal to Emperor in one
>step. He was a famous general and poltician long before he was
>Emperor.
>
You don't say. It is neverheless, a rather surprising turn of affairs,
and it is the case that his biginning were extremly humble, and
his achievemnts pretty unprecedented.
>> Thus I see no major difference between your faith in the existance
>> of Jesus and your faith in the existance of Napoleon.
>
>I do. There is a great deal of secondary evidence for the
>existence of Napoleon, and almost none for the existence of Jesus.
>What little there is for Jesus is asserted by his fans, whereas
>even people who couldn't stand Napoleon admitted who he was.
>
There are stories about Jesus in Jewish sourses, and without
a hint of admiration, I assure you. In addition, to be talked about
in friendly sourses is hardly a proof of their falcity.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <26r3aj$6...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Actually, not a single one of these statements is corrrect, but
|> >never mind.
|>
|> Excuse my - the stone from the tomb is in Jerusalem, Shroud is in Turin,
|> Various bodyparts and pieces of cross in churches throught the world.
No. A stone some people choose to *believe* in is there. A
Shroud some people chose to *believe* in is in Turin. Not
even most Christians, believe in these nickknacks, as it happens:
they are most popular among folk who are as much of the vulgar
superstitious as they are of the religious.
One of the things that you apparently need to learn about
Christianity is that it is a religion of multiple levels of belief,
and some people go in for more of these levels than others.
|> If people want to "believe" in Jesus, they can
|> >perfectly well take some piece of wood and "believe" that it's
|> >a bit of the Cross, etc.
|>
|> Just as you beleive that whatever is buried in the Invalides is the
|> real Napoleon.
Yes, I have no problem with that. Something you need to learn
about belief is that all beliefs are not equally plausible or
equally implausible. The corpse buried in the Invalides was
delived by Napoleon's enemies to his fans. Neither one of them
denied his existence.
|> >
|> >And the answer is clearly "yes". Look at how many temples the
|> >Greeks built to their Gods.
|> >
|> YOU suggested that the size of Napoleon's tomb is the proof of his
|> existence. You are retracting the assertion, I take it.
I suggested no such thing.
|> >Then you don't know very much about History, do you, or perhaps
|> >you've been getting your history from Hollywood, as Americans
|> >tend to do.
|>
|> This is an insult! I protest! I am not and have never been
|> an American.
Then stop playing one on the net.
|> Napoleon didn't go from corporal to Emperor in one
|> >step. He was a famous general and poltician long before he was
|> >Emperor.
|> >
|>
|> You don't say. It is neverheless, a rather surprising turn of affairs,
|> and it is the case that his biginning were extremly humble, and
|> his achievemnts pretty unprecedented.
No, you can find similar stories throughout history. France's
medieval dynasty began as civil servants, England's medieval
dynasty were descended from pirates, Hitler was a corporal, and
so was the father of the late Shah. Sweden's dynasty is descended
from one of Napoleon's Marshals. The last King of Croatia was
a Roman playboy who never visited the country. The last King
of Albania started life as a tribal chieftain. The Helenistic
Empire was founded by various of Alexander's Generals. Rome's
history is littered with army officers who became Emperor. So
is the history of Byzantium. Lenin was a middle-class pseudo-
intellectual, and Stalin was a seminary student.
|> >I do. There is a great deal of secondary evidence for the
|> >existence of Napoleon, and almost none for the existence of Jesus.
|> >What little there is for Jesus is asserted by his fans, whereas
|> >even people who couldn't stand Napoleon admitted who he was.
|> >
|>
|> There are stories about Jesus in Jewish sourses, and without
|> a hint of admiration, I assure you. In addition, to be talked about
|> in friendly sourses is hardly a proof of their falcity.
Or veracity. Now, before you fly off into another tirade about
"proof", we all know that you can't prove anything to a Philosopher,
especially an amateur philosopher, so I am not making any claims to
do so, but I have no trouble believing in the existence of Napoleon,
and I have a lot of trouble believing in the existence of Jesus.
jon.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Sep11.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@quads.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>|>
>|> >Actually, not a single one of these statements is corrrect, but
>|> >never mind.
>|>
>|> Excuse my - the stone from the tomb is in Jerusalem, Shroud is in Turin,
>|> Various bodyparts and pieces of cross in churches throught the world.
>
>No. A stone some people choose to *believe* in is there. A
>Shroud some people chose to *believe* in is in Turin.
Picture that you beleive to be of Napoleon. Tomd that you
beleive to be his. And so on and so forth.
Not
>even most Christians, believe in these nickknacks, as it happens:
>they are most popular among folk who are as much of the vulgar
>superstitious as they are of the religious.
>
From watching the hundreds of thousands of Christians who
come to the shrine of the tomb in Jerusalem, I could not determine
that they are any more vulgar or superstitious than the usual
garden variety Christians.
>One of the things that you apparently need to learn about
>Christianity is that it is a religion of multiple levels of belief,
>and some people go in for more of these levels than others.
>
To quote myself "you don't say?". I thought is was all about
standing on one foot at the top of a column.
>|> >
>|> YOU suggested that the size of Napoleon's tomb is the proof of his
>|> existence. You are retracting the assertion, I take it.
>
>I suggested no such thing.
>
The person who started this thread suggested precisely that.
>|>
>|> You don't say. It is neverheless, a rather surprising turn of affairs,
>|> and it is the case that his biginning were extremly humble, and
>|> his achievemnts pretty unprecedented.
>
>No, you can find similar stories throughout history.
Other people went from humanhood to godhood. Check Buddha.
>
>Or veracity. Now, before you fly off into another tirade about
>"proof", we all know that you can't prove anything to a Philosopher,
>especially an amateur philosopher, so I am not making any claims to
>do so, but I have no trouble believing in the existence of Napoleon,
>and I have a lot of trouble believing in the existence of Jesus.
>
>jon.
Amateur? I am a professional, or practically. My point was that the
veracity of past events is very hard to proove. For an excellent
example, see Serdar Agiric vs. the worls on the subject of
armenian genocide.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <26ri42$c...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >No. A stone some people choose to *believe* in is there. A
|> >Shroud some people chose to *believe* in is in Turin.
|>
|> Picture that you beleive to be of Napoleon. Tomd that you
|> beleive to be his. And so on and so forth.
Yes, of course. What do you think I am saying here? Do you
imagine I have claimed I *know* this for a fact? What I am
saying, for about the fourth time, is that there is a whole lot
of secondary evidence for the existence of Napoleon, none of
which has ever been discredited. There is essentailly *no*
secondary evidence for the existence of Jesus beyond what
appears to be a highly biased biography, and cartloads of fake
relics, most of which even the Churhc no longer accepts as
genuine.
There's a point here that seems to be escaping you. People
were faking evidence for Jesus very, very early on. What does
that tell you about how much genuine evidence they ever had?
|> From watching the hundreds of thousands of Christians who
|> come to the shrine of the tomb in Jerusalem, I could not determine
|> that they are any more vulgar or superstitious than the usual
|> garden variety Christians.
Dead wrong. There is a constant stream of holy madmen through
Jerusalem hospitals, and the consulates do a busy trade in
repatriating religious nutcases who have found Jerusalem just
a bit more than their slightly wonky psyches could stand up to.
As a matter of fact, the BBC did a sly tongue-in-cheek piece
about it last Wednesday or Thursday evening, complete with
solemnly introduced recordings of raving pilgrims. Pretty
funny, in a BBC-ish kind of way.
|> >|> YOU suggested that the size of Napoleon's tomb is the proof of his
|> >|> existence. You are retracting the assertion, I take it.
|> >
|> >I suggested no such thing.
|> >
|> The person who started this thread suggested precisely that.
And how exactly does that become "YOU" pray?
|> >No, you can find similar stories throughout history.
|>
|> Other people went from humanhood to godhood. Check Buddha.
It sounds as though you know approximately as much about
Buddhism as you know about Christianity.
|> Amateur? I am a professional, or practically. My point was that the
|> veracity of past events is very hard to proove. For an excellent
|> example, see Serdar Agiric vs. the worls on the subject of
|> armenian genocide.
If you are a professional philosopher, the profession has
fallen on even harder times than I had suspected. And
my suspicions were already fairly gloomy.
The "point" you now claim to be proving is a well-known
truism. The point you appear to have missed is that
past events are not all equally insecure. Some have
a great deal of secondary evidence in their favour.
Napoleon is one, and Evolution is another.
jon.
asia z lerner
>|> >
>|> >No. A stone some people choose to *believe* in is there. A
>|> >Shroud some people chose to *believe* in is in Turin.
>|>
>|> Picture that you beleive to be of Napoleon. Tomd that you
>|> beleive to be his. And so on and so forth.
>
>Yes, of course. What do you think I am saying here? Do you
>imagine I have claimed I *know* this for a fact? What I am
>saying, for about the fourth time, is that there is a whole lot
>of secondary evidence for the existence of Napoleon, none of
>which has ever been discredited.
Wrong! fake relics of Napoleon have (bits of closing, pens
with which he signed various treaties) have been discredited
time after time.
There is essentailly *no*
>secondary evidence for the existence of Jesus beyond what
>appears to be a highly biased biography, and cartloads of fake
>relics, most of which even the Churhc no longer accepts as
>genuine.
>
A fairly lenghty biography is more evidence than we have
for the existence of any person, 2000 years ago, who
wasn't a priest, a king or a general.
>There's a point here that seems to be escaping you. People
>were faking evidence for Jesus very, very early on. What does
>that tell you about how much genuine evidence they ever had?
>
A point escapes you - if some evidence is valid than apperently
there is something behind the story.
>Dead wrong. There is a constant stream of holy madmen through
>Jerusalem hospitals, and the consulates do a busy trade in
>repatriating religious nutcases who have found Jerusalem just
>a bit more than their slightly wonky psyches could stand up to.
>As a matter of fact, the BBC did a sly tongue-in-cheek piece
>about it last Wednesday or Thursday evening, complete with
>solemnly introduced recordings of raving pilgrims. Pretty
>funny, in a BBC-ish kind of way.
>
If you are claiming that all, or most, pilgrims to Jerusalem are mad
than this is sheer nonsense.
>|> Other people went from humanhood to godhood. Check Buddha.
>
>It sounds as though you know approximately as much about
>Buddhism as you know about Christianity.
>
Buddha started as a person, ended as a devine being.
Stop the ad-hominem shit, and if you think I am wrong - prove it.
>
>The "point" you now claim to be proving is a well-known
>truism.
Than it's a high time you stopped arguing about it.
The point you appear to have missed is that
>past events are not all equally insecure. Some have
>a great deal of secondary evidence in their favour.
>
I never argued that Napoleon and Jesus are equally probable.
I would say that the difference in probability is quantitative
rather than qualitative.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <26tkgf$9...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >Yes, of course. What do you think I am saying here? Do you
|> >imagine I have claimed I *know* this for a fact? What I am
|> >saying, for about the fourth time, is that there is a whole lot
|> >of secondary evidence for the existence of Napoleon, none of
|> >which has ever been discredited.
|>
|> Wrong! fake relics of Napoleon have (bits of closing, pens
|> with which he signed various treaties) have been discredited
|> time after time.
You misunderstand. Here, I have in my hand the sword of
Julius Caesar. Woops! I'm only kidding.
Now, have I brought the existence of Julius Caesar into doubt?
No, because my imaginary sword wasn't being used by anyone to
support the existence of Juslius Caesar in the first place.
Unless you can show that some pen someone attributed to
Napoleon was being used as evidence of the eistence of Napoleon,
in the same way that supposed Christ relics are promoted as
support for the existence of Christ, then you havn't shown
anything at all.
|> A fairly lenghty biography is more evidence than we have
|> for the existence of any person, 2000 years ago, who
|> wasn't a priest, a king or a general.
First that's totally wrong. Second, so what? Doubt about
the existence of person A is not evidence in favour of the
existence of person B.
A professional philosopher, you say. Hmmmm.
|> A point escapes you - if some evidence is valid than apperently
|> there is something behind the story.
I expect there is something. My usual way of putting that is
that some person called Jesus might have existed. He might even
have been a popular teacher. Did "Jesus" exist? It's very
unlikely.
|> If you are claiming that all, or most, pilgrims to Jerusalem are mad
|> than this is sheer nonsense.
I am replying to your explicit claim that "I could not determine
that they are any more vulgar or superstitious than the usual
garden variety Christians."
Now, when you claim they are no different, and I produce evidence
that they are, it does not follow I am saying that they are *all*
mad.
Or did Philosophy class not cover that?
|>
|>
|> >|> Other people went from humanhood to godhood. Check Buddha.
|> >
|> >It sounds as though you know approximately as much about
|> >Buddhism as you know about Christianity.
|>
|> Buddha started as a person, ended as a devine being.
|> Stop the ad-hominem shit, and if you think I am wrong - prove it.
Wrong. Try looking it up.
|> >The "point" you now claim to be proving is a well-known
|> >truism.
|>
|> Than it's a high time you stopped arguing about it.
I'm not. I'm arguing that the existence of Napoleon is
not on the same basis as the existence of Jesus. Remember,
you claimed:
"Thus I see no major difference between your faith in the
existance of Jesus and your faith in the existance of Napoleon.
and I replied:
"I do. There is a great deal of secondary evidence for the
existence of Napoleon, and almost none for the existence of
Jesus."
I have been arguing about weight of evidence from the very first
word. Please don't try and misrepresent what I said this late
in the game.
|> The point you appear to have missed is that
|> >past events are not all equally insecure. Some have
|> >a great deal of secondary evidence in their favour.
|> >
|>
|> I never argued that Napoleon and Jesus are equally probable.
|> I would say that the difference in probability is quantitative
|> rather than qualitative.
Really? Then why did you say:
"Thus I see no major difference between your faith in the
existance of Jesus and your faith in the existance of Napoleon."
<1993Sep10.2...@midway.uchicago.edu>
jon.
James G. Acker
of the Net that when you go away for the weekend, someone else can
take up a thread and essentially debate it to death before you come
back on Monday morning! I don't mind!!!! but it seems that by now,
my comments are pretty inconsequential.
JGA
As Jon Livesey so ably pointed out, there *is* a difference.
In the case of the tomb vs. cathedrals, there is a direct causal linkage
that would lead me to conclude that were I to open the casket at the Invalides,
I would find the remains of Napoleon. All the details of the interment
there are historical and verifiable. For the above -- the tomb
cannot be proven to be where Christ body was lain, the Shroud has been
invalidated, the stone is just a plain ol' stone -- essentially, it takes
a much stronger faith in the Gospel to believe in Christ than it does
to believe in Napoleon.
For another point, there are more cross-checks available
historically. Even if there are cross-checks available in Jewish history,
there are not as many as for Napoleonic France.
: There are two points of difference that I can see :
:
: 1) different portraits - but that is not surprising, seeing that
: Jesus was never painter during his lifetime.
Again indicating that my belief in the existence in Napoleon
rests on a stronger foundation, as he *was*, ostensibly, painted
during his lifetime, and even in historical acts (such as his coronation,
or more rightly, crowning the Empress Josephine, since he took the
crown out of the priest's hands and crowned himself, and the
artist chose not to commemorate that event.
: 2) supernatural details. Still, you might treat the notion that
: an unknown Corsican corporal became the conqueror of Europe as
: somewhat supernatural. I can certainly see people in 1000 years saing
: "corporal to Emperor? - it must be one of those nation-founding myths".
Yes, but if they researched it on CD-ROM, they would find
more detailed histories, pictures of Napoleon, diagrams of Waterloo
and the Russian campaign, etc. etc. etc. -- much of which is traceable
back to a wealth of eyewitness accounts. While there is even more
literature on the life of Christ, there are a great deal fewer eyewitness
accounts.
: Thus I see no major difference between your faith in the existance of
: Jesus and your faith in the existance of Napoleon.
My faith in the existence of Jesus relies on an inner
spiritual witness AND (personal) confirmation through Bible study and
experience of sites like cathedrals, and pictures of the Holy Land;
my faith in Napoleon relies only on historical accounts and a visit
to his tomb. This faith is virtually similar to the faith I have
in the existence of Ulysses S. Grant, and he looked a lot like
a young Sherman Potter. ;-))))
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
(BTW, General Sherman bore a striking resemblance to John Wayne.)
asia z lerner
>
> As Jon Livesey so ably pointed out, there *is* a difference.
>In the case of the tomb vs. cathedrals, there is a direct causal linkage
>that would lead me to conclude that were I to open the casket at the Invalides,
>I would find the remains of Napoleon. All the details of the interment
>there are historical and verifiable. For the above -- the tomb
>cannot be proven to be where Christ body was lain, the Shroud has been
>invalidated, the stone is just a plain ol' stone -- essentially, it takes
>a much stronger faith in the Gospel to believe in Christ than it does
>to believe in Napoleon.
> For another point, there are more cross-checks available
>historically. Even if there are cross-checks available in Jewish history,
>there are not as many as for Napoleonic France.
>
Oh, but there are more testimonials to the existence of Napoleon
then they are to the existance of, say, Julius Cesar, or Xerxes
of Persia. The belief in the existance of Jesus (not his
divinity, that's another question) is not less verifiable (more,
probably) than Xerxes. Thus, beleife in the existance of the
historical Jesus = belief in the existance of the historical
Xerxes.
Scott Gibson
>
>The belief in the existance of Jesus (not his
>divinity, that's another question) is not less verifiable (more,
>probably) than Xerxes.
I doubt this very sincerely.
How many contemporary and independent references to Jesus can you
find? How many for Xerxes?
--
*******************************************************************************
"Like most of his countrymen, he was carried away by the sound of fine words,
especially if uttered by himself." - Joseph Conrad, _Nostromo_
Scott Gibson {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer: These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Sep13....@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>The belief in the existance of Jesus (not his
>>divinity, that's another question) is not less verifiable (more,
>>probably) than Xerxes.
>
>I doubt this very sincerely.
>
>How many contemporary and independent references to Jesus can you
>find? How many for Xerxes?
>
>
References independent of what? I am not sure what you mean.
I would like to underline again that I am arguing about
historicity of Jesus not his claims to divinity.
Jon Livesey
|>
|> Oh, but there are more testimonials to the existence of Napoleon
|> then they are to the existance of, say, Julius Cesar, or Xerxes
|> of Persia. The belief in the existance of Jesus (not his
|> divinity, that's another question) is not less verifiable (more,
|> probably) than Xerxes. Thus, beleife in the existance of the
|> historical Jesus = belief in the existance of the historical
|> Xerxes.
I think you lose on this one. Essentially all the evidence for
Jesus traces back to one document, and the belief of a gazillion
people in the veracity of the document. After that, you have
to depend on people like Josephus who says he heard about such a
person, but doesn't claim to have seen him.
In the case of Xerxes, on the other hand, there are both domestic
references and also references by Greek historians like Xenephon,
as well as coins, tombs and other physical artefacts.
But if you want, you can find secular figures who are about as
uncertain as Jesus. King Arthur was probably "someone" but
probably not the person popularly portrayed.
jon.
Robert Derrick
: a hint of admiration, I assure you. In addition, to be talked about
: in friendly sourses is hardly a proof of their falcity.
What are these sources? More specific; I have only ever heard of
ref's from Josephus?
---
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
Robert Derrick
: Various bodyparts and pieces of cross in churches throught the world.
Whoa! Only if you have an incredulity level of zero.
If all of the pieces of true cross were put together in one place, you
could build Noah's ark out of them.
A stone as evidence? Be serious.
The Shroud, being carbon dated as less than 1000 years old, containing
a mecury compound and andhydrous iron oxide, both used as medieval paints,
red and yellow respectively, and a Jesus who height would have sure
been noticed by at least one gospel writer as being taller than anybody
else around, and blood flow and non-clotting inconsistent with reality,
and, and, and,...
And body parts? Are you seriously suggesting this? Just how many forskins
did he have, and is it that all of them were saved?
You forgot to mention the vial of blood, that turns back into liquid on
holy days.
And what about the tortilla with the image of Christ on it, in New Mexico.
And while you're at it, why not mention the 300' tall visit from Christ
to Oral Roberts. Surely that counts for something.
You must be having quite a joke at our expense.
--
"The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is
a delight to moralists -- that is why
they invented hell." - Bertrand Russell
---
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
asia z lerner
>asia z lerner (azle...@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>:
>: There are stories about Jesus in Jewish sourses, and without
>: a hint of admiration, I assure you. In addition, to be talked about
>: in friendly sourses is hardly a proof of their falcity.
>
>What are these sources? More specific; I have only ever heard of
>ref's from Josephus?
>
I was talking about halachic stories - that is, stories coming
from religious Jewish sourses. Sorry, don't have the quotations
right now, but most (not to say all) of those stories are
obviously polemic, along the lines of "he was a horrible guy, and
got hung, which he richly deserved". One pervasive theme is that
Jesus was an illigitimate child of a Roman soldier. Its
rather clear, though, that since the above stories were prodused for
a Jewish audience, the accusation of being born of a non-Jewish
father, especialy a Roman, was used as especially damning.
---
>rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
Scott Gibson
>
>References independent of what?
Independent of each other. In other words, you can't count
two references as two independent references if one is based
on the other.
The number of independent historical references to Jesus is
quite close to one.
I would be very surprised, indeed, if there were fewer than
that for Xerxes; else, how could we be talking about him? :-)
>I would like to underline again that I am arguing about
>historicity of Jesus not his claims to divinity.
I'm not arguing against the historicity of Jesus; I'm arguing
about your ridiculous attempts to place the historicity of
Jesus on the same level as that of Napoleon, or even Xerxes.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Sep13.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>References independent of what?
>
>Independent of each other. In other words, you can't count
>two references as two independent references if one is based
>on the other.
>
Then the number is at least four - the four evangiles are not
dependent on each other. It's 5 if you count Josephus.
>
>I'm not arguing against the historicity of Jesus; I'm arguing
>about your ridiculous attempts to place the historicity of
>Jesus on the same level as that of Napoleon, or even Xerxes.
>
>
If in principle you accept the historicity of Jesus, than I
dont see why the comparison to Xerxes should be just so shoking.
Stephen F. Schaffner
[Regarding references to Jesus:]
|> >Independent of each other. In other words, you can't count
|> >two references as two independent references if one is based
|> >on the other.
|> >
|>
|> Then the number is at least four - the four evangiles are not
|> dependent on each other. It's 5 if you count Josephus.
Even by this loose definition of "independent", the four gospels are almost
certainly not independent, since Matthew and Luke seem to be based in
part on Mark. You'd do better to offer Mark, John, Q (or, if you prefer,
the Gospel of Thomas), and Paul (in the few things he writes about Jesus'
life) as your independent sources. Not that there's any great
likelihood that they *are* independent, since some or all of them
probably have a common origin, but at least you'd have the beginnings
of an argument.
--
Steve Schaffner ssc...@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Scott Gibson
>
>If in principle you accept the historicity of Jesus, than I
>dont see why the comparison to Xerxes should be just so shoking.
Huh?
Look, if you are making bad arguments, it doesn't matter if
I agree with your conclusions or not - they're still bad
arguments.
Saying that the historicity of Jesus is on a par with that
of Napoleon simply isn't true. Ditto for Xerxes.
Jon Livesey
|> >In article <1993Sep13.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
|> >>
|> >>References independent of what?
|> >
|> >Independent of each other. In other words, you can't count
|> >two references as two independent references if one is based
|> >on the other.
|> >
|>
|> Then the number is at least four - the four evangiles are not
|> dependent on each other.
Oh, cut it out.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> asia z lerner (azle...@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
|> :
|> : There are stories about Jesus in Jewish sourses, and without
|> : a hint of admiration, I assure you. In addition, to be talked about
|> : in friendly sourses is hardly a proof of their falcity.
|>
|> What are these sources? More specific; I have only ever heard of
|> ref's from Josephus?
And are they stories in which a Jewish author says "Jesus,
who I heard...." or does he say "Jesus, who these Christians
talk about....."
There's quite a difference between a passage that says someone
existed, and a passage that comments on someone else's belief
that the person existed.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|>
|> One pervasive theme is that
|> Jesus was an illigitimate child of a Roman soldier. Its
|> rather clear, though, that since the above stories were prodused for
|> a Jewish audience, the accusation of being born of a non-Jewish
|> father, especialy a Roman, was used as especially damning.
Which is pretty funny, when you think about it.
jon.
Kevin W Davidson
"...who are commonly called Christians. Cristus, from whom their name is
derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate
in the reign of Tiberius."
Tacitus. _Annales_, xv.44 [AD 64]
Kevin Davidson, Asst. Moderator AmigaZone Vendor Support - PORTAL
<soft-...@cup.portal.com>
SOFT-LOGIK BBS (PCP MOSLO) (314) 894-0057
Aaron Clausen
>In article <26q2l9$p...@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>>
>> No. There's no absence of evidence regarding anthropoid
>>evolution -- I can get direct sensory confirmation of the existence
>>of anthropoid fossils. I read "direct sensory confirmation" to mean
>>seeing Christ with our eyes, hearing him speak with our ears, having Him
>>touch us with His hands. Furthermore, I don't think reading the Bible
>>is direct sensory confirmation, either.
>>
>That raises an interesting question - do you beleive in Napoleon?
A large number of people independtly verified Napoleon's existence and deeds.
The existence of Christ was only verified by a few, which attributed some
pretty fantastic and mystical deeds to him. If Christ existed, it is pretty
doubtful that he was the kind of man that people later wrote him to be.
Do you believe there was color vision before color television?
--
Aaron G. Clausen
aar...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca
The Tao Of Cow BBS- Port Alberni, BC Canada (604) 723-8915
asia z lerner
>
>"...who are commonly called Christians. Cristus, from whom their name is
>derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate
>in the reign of Tiberius."
>
>Tacitus. _Annales_, xv.44 [AD 64]
>
>Kevin Davidson, Asst. Moderator AmigaZone Vendor Support - PORTAL
Is this one of those quotations that everybody argues about,
or is it considered valid by most historians?
asia z lerner
>
>>That raises an interesting question - do you beleive in Napoleon?
>
>A large number of people independtly verified Napoleon's existence and deeds.
>The existence of Christ was only verified by a few, which attributed some
>pretty fantastic and mystical deeds to him. If Christ existed, it is pretty
>doubtful that he was the kind of man that people later wrote him to be.
>
>Do you believe there was color vision before color television?
>
>--
>Aaron G. Clausen
THere must be a mystical connection between the two questions, which
will be explained to me in due time. Yes, there was color vision
before color tv - roses were red, violets were blue, and so on.
Henling, Lawrence M.
>Then the number is at least four - the four evangiles are not
>dependent on each other. It's 5 if you count Josephus.
Why don't you read soc.religion.christian to find references that many/most
Christian scholars disagree with you on this dependency? People have spent
years studying old manuscripts and the relationships between them; what basis
do you have for disagreeing with them?
>If in principle you accept the historicity of Jesus, than I
>dont see why the comparison to Xerxes should be just so shoking.
Xerxes was at the time a much better known, documented and influential
person. There is more evidence for either of them than for the
existence of an ordinary citizen of the time.
larry henling l...@shakes.caltech.edu
Robert Derrick
: (Robert Derrick) writes:
: >asia z lerner (azle...@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: >:
: >: There are stories about Jesus in Jewish sourses, and without
: >: a hint of admiration, I assure you. In addition, to be talked about
: >: in friendly sourses is hardly a proof of their falcity.
: >
: >What are these sources? More specific; I have only ever heard of
: >ref's from Josephus?
:
: I was talking about halachic stories - that is, stories coming
: from religious Jewish sourses. Sorry, don't have the quotations
: right now,
Well then, as a reference, that's pretty poor, sorry if it hurts
your feelings. I would think that by now one of the fans of the
guy would have put together into one neat package, if not a complete
copy of all of the references, then at least a pointer to all of
them. Without that, your vague reference to "halachic" is only
anecdotal. Now, I don't doubt that the references exist, I just
doubt that their character is such as to provide evidentiary
support of Jesus' existence as a real person.
Jon L. writes
> And are they stories in which a Jewish author says "Jesus,
> who I heard...." or does he say "Jesus, who these Christians
> talk about....."
>
> There's quite a difference between a passage that says someone
> existed, and a passage that comments on someone else's belief
> that the person existed.
It makes a big difference. When, how and under what circumstances
were the "halachic" references written? More specific, more detail.
There are plenty references to Robin Hood, Arthur Pendragon,
and Kilroy. But it is not clear that any of them were ever really
"here".
--
"The infliction of cruelty [torture,rape,murder,slavery,oppression -- not wit!]
Robert Derrick
: |> One pervasive theme is that
: |> Jesus was an illigitimate child of a Roman soldier. Its
: |> rather clear, though, that since the above stories were prodused for
: |> a Jewish audience, the accusation of being born of a non-Jewish
: |> father, especialy a Roman, was used as especially damning.
:
: Which is pretty funny, when you think about it.
Robert Graves had a most remarkable and controversial theory about
this subject, which he explored in his novel, King Jesus.
Based on several anomolies in the Gospels, he proposes that indeed
Jesus was born of a Roman father. But not a soldier. A father that
was at the same time a Roman citizen, and a Jew, and an heir to the
title, "King of the Jews". Since Mary traces her lineage directly
to the House of David, and was herself a priestess in the Temple,
she could be said to have been of Royal blood, and thus a son of
hers might have divine right to the throne. However, the Herodians
now ruled Judea, and claimed the throne by right of force and
by the permission of Rome. A male heir of Herod's throne, and of
David's divine claim, would have been able to bring together most
if not all of Judea's people, the aristocrats and the religious.
Herod the Great's son was put to death for some unknown conspiracy against
his father. The gospels record the slaughter of the innocents as
Herod's attempt to eliminate the "future king". His virulent anger and
revenge, in the light of such a possibility, is much more plausible than
simply a superstitious belief in the prophecy of three foreign, and
hitherto unknown, "wise men".
Anyway, it's a great book, and it has a lot more information and detail
that I can give in a few paragraphs, and is a persuasive, for me,
as any other account or theory of the life of Jesus.
PS: Regards the historocity argument:
I do believe that Jesus (Yeshua) was a real person, even though
the evidence is sketchy.
rob derrick
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Sep14....@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>>Then the number is at least four - the four evangiles are not
>>dependent on each other. It's 5 if you count Josephus.
>
> Why don't you read soc.religion.christian to find references that many/most
>Christian scholars disagree with you on this dependency?
Why don't you just tell me instead of making it a quiz -
are they supposed to be dependent?
Maddi Hausmann
aar...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca (Aaron Clausen) writes: >>
>>A large number of people independtly verified Napoleon's existence and deeds.
>>The existence of Christ was only verified by a few, which attributed some
>>pretty fantastic and mystical deeds to him. If Christ existed, it is pretty
>>doubtful that he was the kind of man that people later wrote him to be.
>>
>>Do you believe there was color vision before color television?
>
>THere must be a mystical connection between the two questions, which
>will be explained to me in due time. Yes, there was color vision
>before color tv - roses were red, violets were blue, and so on.
AH HAH HAH HAH HAH! You fell right into the trap!
The whole world was in black and white until 1955; that's why all those
old photos are all in black and white. "Red" and "Blue" were merely
different shades of grey at the time. My reference for this amazing
fact is Bill Watterson if you don't believe me.
--
Maddi Hausmann mad...@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
Kevin W Davidson
I'm not a historian, so I have to beg off on the answer. However, you
are perhaps referring to one of Josephus which is often said to be a
pious insertion. There are two citations from Josephus, one of which
is not thought to be a pious insertion.
Kevin Davidson, Asst. Moderator AmigaZone Vendor Support - PORTAL
asia z lerner
>azle...@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >
>aar...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca (Aaron Clausen) writes: >>
>
>>>A large number of people independtly verified Napoleon's existence and deeds.
>>>The existence of Christ was only verified by a few, which attributed some
>>>pretty fantastic and mystical deeds to him. If Christ existed, it is pretty
>>>doubtful that he was the kind of man that people later wrote him to be.
>>>
>>>Do you believe there was color vision before color television?
>>
>>THere must be a mystical connection between the two questions, which
>>will be explained to me in due time. Yes, there was color vision
>>before color tv - roses were red, violets were blue, and so on.
>
>AH HAH HAH HAH HAH! You fell right into the trap!
>
>The whole world was in black and white until 1955; that's why all those
>old photos are all in black and white. "Red" and "Blue" were merely
>different shades of grey at the time. My reference for this amazing
>fact is Bill Watterson if you don't believe me.
>
>
I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what this has
to do with Napoleon/Jesus.
Michael L. Siemon
>In article <1993Sep14....@anasazi.com> sc...@misty.UUCP
(Scott Gibson) writes:
>>Independent of each other. In other words, you can't count
>>two references as two independent references if one is based
>>on the other.
>Then the number is at least four - the four evangiles are not
>dependent on each other. It's 5 if you count Josephus.
Wrong. The synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are definitely
mutually dependent, whatever theory of that dependence one holds.
John is not fully independent of them either (such witness as
they all provide stems from what claims to be the same circle of
disciples.) Josephus can be counted as independent witness for
James of Jerusalem, and thereby (just as with Paul's mention of
James and Peter) fairly good *indirect* evidence for the Jesus
that James is called the brother of. The _Testimonium Flavianum_
(the direct reference to Jesus in Josephus) has been doctored too
much to have strong evidentiary weight -- it is unclear what the
original form was, and hence whether it was essentially like that
in Tacitus and other Romans, effectively a description of Christian
self-report rather than independent witness.
We have, in effect, only two direct traditions (in the four gospels)
claiming to give information about Jesus, and these two (along with
the initial Christian community that produced them and which also
generated a large body of other -- mostly mythical -- stuff about
Jesus), and these cannot seriously be regarded as independent.
As for Xerxes, there is at least his building activity (Persepolis)
and his tomb, some inscriptional data and the Greeks. I don't know
off hand if any coins minted in his reign carry his name (the coins
are universally called "darics" after his father's introduction of
the coinage.) However, we have in any case *autobiographical*
inscriptions put up at his command (with lots of pious Zoroastrian
stuff). The quality of this data is so overwhelmingly much better
than what we have about Jesus (a very fee, highly stylized statements
from a community that quite obviously was soon prone to invention about
him, nothing at all directly from Jesus himself), that it is laughable
to make the comparison. A much better comparison would be between
Jesus and Zoroaster, who *is* less well established historically
than Jesus is.
--
Michael L. Siemon "We honour founders of these starving cities
m...@panix.com Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
m...@ulysses.att.com They built by rivers and at night the water
-standard disclaimer- Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
James J. Lippard
More plausible is that there was no such "slaughter of the innocents."
The first recorded Roman census occurred in 6 AD under Quirinius. If the
gospel of Luke is correct in linking the birth of Jesus with this census,
then he was born a decade after Herod the Great had died. (Some Christians
claim that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, and ordered another,
earlier, census, but this is highly implausible for various reasons.
E.g., there is no solid evidence (but some speculation on the basis of
various inscriptions) that Quirinius was governor of Syria prior to 6 AD,
and there are strong reasons against a census in Palestine during
Herod's reign.)
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
asia z lerner
>
>More plausible is that there was no such "slaughter of the innocents."
>The first recorded Roman census occurred in 6 AD under Quirinius. If the
>gospel of Luke is correct in linking the birth of Jesus with this census,
>then he was born a decade after Herod the Great had died. (Some Christians
>claim that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, and ordered another,
>earlier, census, but this is highly implausible for various reasons.
>E.g., there is no solid evidence (but some speculation on the basis of
>various inscriptions) that Quirinius was governor of Syria prior to 6 AD,
>and there are strong reasons against a census in Palestine during
>Herod's reign.)
>
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
It is also highly improbable that Flavius, who mentioned Herod
many times would skip the juicy tale of Herod having slaughtered
unptenth number of innocent babies. I agree - rather unlikely.
Though I think Herod's reputaion for cruelty could have given
rise to such a tale.
Eric Shafto
: The whole world was in black and white until 1955; that's why all those
: old photos are all in black and white. "Red" and "Blue" were merely
: different shades of grey at the time. My reference for this amazing
: fact is Bill Watterson if you don't believe me.
Um, correct, except for one thing:
It's "Maddhi," not "Maddi."
--
*Eric Shafto * I hope...to see the day when...in...our country*
*Institute for the * we won't have any public schools. The churches*
* Learning Sciences * will have taken them over and Christians will *
*Northwestern University * be running them. What a happy day that will *
* * be! -Rev. Jerry Fallwell, on vouchers. *
Aaron Clausen
Lots of people have been attributed with mystical, supernatural abilities, what
makes Jesus any different?
If I can believe that Jesus had these abilities, then I can believe the Merlin
was a wizard. I have as much faith in the latter as I have in the former.
--
"Amnesia's fine, but everybody else still knows who you are."
Aaron Clausen
The explanation is that by your statements, nothing is disproveable. Napoleon
might not have existed, nobody before my birth might have existed. This is
philosophical discussion, and as a general rule, anything goes in philosophy.
When I ask if you believe there was color vision before color television, can
you prove that there was.
I realize this is an irrational argument, but it uses the same logic by which
you are attempting to prove that it is as likely Jesus existed as Napoleon.
--
"Amnesia's fine, but everybody else still knows who you are."
Aaron G. Clausen: aar...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca
asia z lerner
>In <1993Sep16.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@quads.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>>In article <madhausC...@netcom.com> mad...@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>>>AH HAH HAH HAH HAH! You fell right into the trap!
>>>
>>>The whole world was in black and white until 1955; that's why all those
>>>old photos are all in black and white. "Red" and "Blue" were merely
>>>different shades of grey at the time. My reference for this amazing
>>>fact is Bill Watterson if you don't believe me.
>>>
>>>
>
>>I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what this has
>>to do with Napoleon/Jesus.
>
>The explanation is that by your statements, nothing is disproveable. Napoleon
>might not have existed, nobody before my birth might have existed. This is
>philosophical discussion, and as a general rule, anything goes in philosophy.
>When I ask if you believe there was color vision before color television, can
>you prove that there was.
>
>I realize this is an irrational argument, but it uses the same logic by which
>you are attempting to prove that it is as likely Jesus existed as Napoleon.
>
>
1) Oil paintings were in color so I do have a way to prove that
color vision existed.
2) I would agree that the existence of Jesus is less well
documented than that of Napoleon, and therefore the historical
truth might be much more divergent from the accepted story,
but as I pointed out, there are other historical personages
for who's existence we have as much proof as we have for
Jesus'. Thus, the difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
That is, in assuming that some kind of 1st century BC
relity underlies the Jesus story isn't that different
from assuming that Xerxes in not a character invented ny
a scribe centuries after he is supposed to have existed.
Maddi Hausmann
>>>I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what this has
>>>to do with Napoleon/Jesus.
>>
>>The explanation is that by your statements, nothing is disproveable. Napoleon
>>might not have existed, nobody before my birth might have existed. This is
>>philosophical discussion, and as a general rule, anything goes in philosophy.
>>When I ask if you believe there was color vision before color television, can
>>you prove that there was.
>>
>>I realize this is an irrational argument, but it uses the same logic by which
>>you are attempting to prove that it is as likely Jesus existed as Napoleon.
>
>1) Oil paintings were in color so I do have a way to prove that
>color vision existed.
Nope, wrong again. You really should check the reference for the
argument I gave you. Oil paintings were made with black and white
pigments, and they all turned into color pigments in 1955. Remember
what I said about shades of grey? Be careful about this.
>2) I would agree that the existence of Jesus is less well
>documented than that of Napoleon, and therefore the historical
>truth might be much more divergent from the accepted story,
>but as I pointed out, there are other historical personages
>for who's existence we have as much proof as we have for
>Jesus'. Thus, the difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
>That is, in assuming that some kind of 1st century BC
>relity underlies the Jesus story isn't that different
>from assuming that Xerxes in not a character invented ny
>a scribe centuries after he is supposed to have existed.
You're ignoring other important points here:
There IS more data supporting Xerxes' existence than Jesus'. All those
humdrum records, kept by all those unrelated scribes, support Xerxes'
actual existence. Where is Jesus' birth certificate? Okay, how about
the edition of _Judean Post_ with a review of his Sermon on the Mount?
Don't have that either, huh? You SURE this guy really existed?
The stories attributed to Jesus are magical and mythic, which lends them
a rather unbelievable set of facts. Extraordinary claims require
extraoridinary proof. Nothing attributed to Xerxes includes miracles
and violations of natural laws.
The story of Jesus has several parallels with older religions,
especially the Cult of Mithras. This would suggest that the story was
indeed a myth that was merely updated, rather than being literal truth.
Also see the Isis/Osiris myth as well for more tales of resurrection of
a male (human) god.
The more you study other religions, the easier it is to see how much
they all have in common, and how silly it is to take them literally.
asia z lerner
>>
>>1) Oil paintings were in color so I do have a way to prove that
>>color vision existed.
>
>Nope, wrong again. You really should check the reference for the
>argument I gave you. Oil paintings were made with black and white
>pigments, and they all turned into color pigments in 1955. Remember
>what I said about shades of grey? Be careful about this.
>
Suggest a physical process by which gray oil paint turns
into colors, I know of non.
>>2) I would agree that the existence of Jesus is less well
>>documented than that of Napoleon, and therefore the historical
>>truth might be much more divergent from the accepted story,
>>but as I pointed out, there are other historical personages
>>for who's existence we have as much proof as we have for
>>Jesus'. Thus, the difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
>>That is, in assuming that some kind of 1st century BC
>>relity underlies the Jesus story isn't that different
>>from assuming that Xerxes in not a character invented ny
>>a scribe centuries after he is supposed to have existed.
>
>You're ignoring other important points here:
>
>There IS more data supporting Xerxes' existence than Jesus'. All those
>humdrum records, kept by all those unrelated scribes, support Xerxes'
>actual existence. Where is Jesus' birth certificate? Okay, how about
>the edition of _Judean Post_ with a review of his Sermon on the Mount?
>Don't have that either, huh? You SURE this guy really existed?
>
From "Judean Post", year 3781, 8 of Sivan, page 5, announcements:
"Baby boy born to Joseph and Mary.
Congratulations! May he be as good
a carpenter as his father."
>The stories attributed to Jesus are magical and mythic, which lends them
>a rather unbelievable set of facts. Extraordinary claims require
>extraoridinary proof. Nothing attributed to Xerxes includes miracles
>and violations of natural laws.
>
Some of the stories are perfectly routine and understendable
in the historical context in which Jesus lived. In addition,
attachement of unnatural detailes to biographies of sages is
a well known custom.
>The story of Jesus has several parallels with older religions,
>especially the Cult of Mithras. This would suggest that the story was
>indeed a myth that was merely updated, rather than being literal truth.
>Also see the Isis/Osiris myth as well for more tales of resurrection of
>a male (human) god.
>
Descriptions of kings in terms identical to that in which
Xerxes was described - Great king, conqueror, builder, etc..
abound.
>The more you study other religions, the easier it is to see how much
>they all have in common, and how silly it is to take them literally.
>
Who said anything about taking it letterary? Muhamad's life,
according to Qur'an was studded with miricals. Does that
mean that he is not a historical character?
Jonathan Kelley
>>
>>1) Oil paintings were in color so I do have a way to prove that
>>color vision existed.
>Nope, wrong again. You really should check the reference for the
>argument I gave you. Oil paintings were made with black and white
>pigments, and they all turned into color pigments in 1955. Remember
>what I said about shades of grey? Be careful about this.
Eyewitnesses from the era before color television will testify
that things were in color. Now, this is pretty weak.
Physics texts since, oh, say, 200 BCTV (Before Color TV) list
wavelengths of various colors that match our current standards.
(Yes, I know what your point was.)
>The more you study other religions, the easier it is to see how much
>they all have in common, and how silly it is to take them literally.
Now that is certainly true. The more myths you read, the easier
it is to recognize myth when you see it.
>--
>Maddi Hausmann mad...@netcom.com
>Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
>Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
--
Jonathan Kelley
jke...@cco.caltech.edu