"We Also Walk Dogs" Heinlein, non-Christian, but see "Job: A Comedy of Justice"
Dave
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/concordance/books/waw_hc.htm
Heaven is where Margrethe is
http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/robert-heinlein/job-a-comedy-of-justice.html
Is there anyone out there in USENETland
able to offer evaluation from a Christian
perspective or a sci-fi perspective?
David Christainsen
Bill Patterson
> A Heinlein Concordancehttp://www.heinleinsociety.org/concordance/books/waw_hc.htm
>
> Heaven is where Margrethe ishttp://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/robert-heinlein/job-a-comedy-of-...
>
> Is there anyone out there in USENETland
> able to offer evaluation from a Christian
> perspective or a sci-fi perspective?
>
> David Christainsen
Those are exceedingly broad requests. Could you narrow down a bit
what you are interested in having addressed? I have a hard time
imagining what specifically Christian perspective could be taken on
"We Also Walk Dogs."
Jonathan Schattke
What's to say? It seems fairly exhaustive, and a fascinating site for
fans of his stuff who follow the timeline.
Heinlien brooked no truck with religion, but believed being good and
helpful was right. He was a libertarian politically, which matches with
his religious beliefs (what I would call independent faith).
Gene
703132...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> is where Margrethe is
> http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/robert-heinlein/job-a-comedy-of-
justice.html
>
> Is there anyone out there in USENETland
> able to offer evaluation from a Christian
> perspective or a sci-fi perspective?
What about from a neopagan perspective? Have to give equal time to the Odin
worshippers.
What's this I hear about Job being one of Heinlein's most =admired works, by
the way?
--
"It's not like there is much that is universal among economists." -- Shawn
Wilson
Quadibloc
> Is there anyone out there in USENETland
> able to offer evaluation from a Christian
> perspective or a sci-fi perspective?
I'll just note that while Isaac Asimov was an avowed atheist, he wrote
some stories which included God and angels.
John Savard
Tian
Last night they had a thing on the news about gay marriage. One thing
both sides agreed on was that the right word for the institution is
"marriage".The pro gay marriage womans explination was "you can't port
other terms over state lines."
I got to thinking. There are only a few states Heinlein chose to call
home, and none of them were places like Utah with a particular religion.
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest change: pictures and words about the GPCA meeting in Ventura.
Bill Patterson
Heinlein wrote to Asimov about Job: Dear Isaac,
I had purposed sending you a copy of novel Job and my thanks to you
with it. But Judy-Lynn (whom the Saints
praise) tells me that you received a copy at the same time author's
copies went to me. So be it. Thank you. I get a bit jaundiced as I
get older but I never grow tired of kind words from esteemed
colleagues . . . and they hardly come any esteemer.
But you had better like this one, as you are its godfather. This is
one of the best kept secrets in SF. Yes, you. Do you recall writing
a letter to me in October 1939 (give or take a decade) in which you
were discussing the fact that Jehovah had all the best press agents
and that Satan wasn't getting a fair shake? That letter from you has
been in the vaults of McHenry Library, U of Calif, these many years
[It doesn't seem to be] but I did not need to refer to it; the
subversive doctrine in it had been working in my mind all these
decades and finally bore fruit in Job. All through these forty-odd
years I had intended to write a story based on the idea you handed
me. But itneeded the right time, the right cultural milieu.
So Job really should have been dedicated to Isaac Asimov, Devil's
Advocate . . . but it appeared that Mr. Simak was closer to death than
you are. Yes, I am aware of your cardiac problems . . . but I still
think that Cliff will go before you do; you'll have to wait. (I plan
to outlive both of you. You had better hope I do because, when I die,
all the rest of you disappear.)"
The best-laid plans, etc.
David DeLaney
>> http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/robert-heinlein/job-a-comedy-of-
>justice.html
>>
>> Is there anyone out there in USENETland
>> able to offer evaluation from a Christian
>> perspective or a sci-fi perspective?
>
>What about from a neopagan perspective? Have to give equal time to the Odin
>worshippers.
>
>What's this I hear about Job being one of Heinlein's most =admired works, by
>the way?
...and now I'm imagining this thread being read on the air by Roseanne
Rosannadanna. Good job!
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Jon
reality. There is no anti-gravity mechanism possible in science, and there
is no mockery of the Bible among Christians.
It isn't useful to belittle laws of eternity that are useful to solve life's
problems, not compound them. The Bible is an instruction manual on how to
live life abundantly. Science is knowledge of the universe indifferent to
good/evil or fantastical extrapolations. Science can build the ship and
Religion take the helm.
Do I think God does or does exist? I will save the answer to that for
another time.
I grew up provoked to anger exponentially, and the Beast had a pronounced
head in society: in me. The Beast did its damage to its other heads, until
I harnessed it and used to my advantage. Why not? I earned it. When the
Beast saw the damage I could do to it, it went into remission. What
distinuishes animal man from civilized man? The wisdom to defy instinct
when it harms people, and cultivate it when it helps them.
This is serious business not to be parodized by parascience or fictional
comedy. Those of these attititudes are known to me as none other than
fools.
"Dave" <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90412c1e-b543-4d61...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Mike Schilling
>
> Heinlein wrote to Asimov about Job: ?Dear Isaac,
> I had purposed sending you a copy of novel Job and my thanks to you
> with it. But Judy-Lynn (whom the Saints
> praise) tells me that you received a copy at the same time author's
> copies went to me. So be it. Thank you. I get a bit jaundiced as
> I
> get older but I never grow tired of kind words from esteemed
> colleagues . . . and they hardly come any esteemer.
> But you had better like this one, as you are its godfather. This is
> one of the best kept secrets in SF. Yes, you. Do you recall
> writing
> a letter to me in October 1939 (give or take a decade) in which you
> were discussing the fact that Jehovah had all the best press agents
> and that Satan wasn't getting a fair shake?
Isn't that pretty mcuha direct quote from Mark Twain?
> That letter from you has
> been in the vaults of McHenry Library, U of Calif, these many years
> [It doesn't seem to be] but I did not need to refer to it; the
> subversive doctrine in it had been working in my mind all these
> decades and finally bore fruit in Job. All through these forty-odd
> years I had intended to write a story based on the idea you handed
> me. But itneeded the right time, the right cultural milieu.
> So Job really should have been dedicated to Isaac Asimov, Devil's
> Advocate . . . but it appeared that Mr. Simak was closer to death
> than
> you are. Yes, I am aware of your cardiac problems . . . but I still
> think that Cliff will go before you do; you'll have to wait. (I
> plan
> to outlive both of you. You had better hope I do because, when I
> die,
> all the rest of you disappear.)"
Nice letter; thanks for sharing.
Quadibloc
> The problem with the material in the links is that they are not founded in
> reality. There is no anti-gravity mechanism possible in science, and there
> is no mockery of the Bible among Christians.
>
> It isn't useful to belittle laws of eternity that are useful to solve life's
> problems, not compound them. The Bible is an instruction manual on how to
> live life abundantly. Science is knowledge of the universe indifferent to
> good/evil or fantastical extrapolations. Science can build the ship and
> Religion take the helm.
Science deals with reality.
Religion deals with traditional beliefs, attempts to get grown adults
to take these old tribal folktales seriously, and through the use of
this attempts to manipulate and control them.
Of course, that isn't _all_ there is to religion; it also has a
positive aspect, where people contemplate the mystery of
consciousness, and acknowledge the importance of ethical behavior
towards their fellow individuals. But it is the negative aspects that
make the most noise.
John Savard
Bill Patterson
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know, I hadn't thought about that, but it is very Twainian, isn't
it? Though I'm not sure even he would have said it that bluntly --
Ambrose Bierce, maybe?
Mike Schilling
> On May 23, 10:41?pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Bill Patterson wrote:
>>
>>> Heinlein wrote to Asimov about Job: ??Dear Isaac,
>>> I had purposed sending you a copy of novel Job and my thanks to
>>> you
>>> praise) tells me that you received a copy at the same time
>>> author's
>>> I
>>> get older but I never grow tired of kind words from esteemed
>>> colleagues . . . and they hardly come any esteemer.
>>> is
>>> one of the best kept secrets in SF. ?Yes, you. ?Do you recall
>>> writing
>>> a letter to me in October 1939 (give or take a decade) in which
>>> you
>>> were discussing the fact that Jehovah had all the best press
>>> agents
>>> and that Satan wasn't getting a fair shake?
>>
> You know, I hadn't thought about that, but it is very Twainian,
> isn't
> it? Though I'm not sure even he would have said it that bluntly --
> Ambrose Bierce, maybe?
A bit of Googling reveals this:
"Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a
million."
http://www.twainquotes.com/God.html
Anyway, why do you think Heinlein ever read any Bierce? :-)
Rod
What has this got to do with Quakers ?
Bill Snyder
<WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 10:41?pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>and that Satan wasn't getting a fair shake?
>>
>> Isn't that pretty mcuha direct quote from Mark Twain?
>You know, I hadn't thought about that, but it is very Twainian, isn't
>it? Though I'm not sure even he would have said it that bluntly --
>Ambrose Bierce, maybe?
He was pretty blunt about it:
"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that
I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a
little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All
religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious
things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but
evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the verdict.
To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English. It is
un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus could
not have been condemned. As soon as I can get at the facts I will
undertake his rehabilitation myself if I can find an unpolitic
publisher. It is a thing we ought to be willing to do for anyone
who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would
be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents. A person
who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of
spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political
head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of
executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence
the other popes and politicians shrink to midgets for the
microscope. I would like to see him. I would rather see him and
shake him by the tail than any member of the European concert."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Wayne Throop
:: You know, I hadn't thought about that, but it is very Twainian, isn't
:: it? Though I'm not sure even he would have said it that bluntly --
:: Ambrose Bierce, maybe?
: "I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I
: have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little
: his way, on account of his not having a fair show.
And in general, who can read Heinlein's Job without thinking of
Twain's Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven? Well. If they've
ever heard of it, I mean.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Mike Schilling
> "I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that
> I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a
> little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All
> religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious
> things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but
> evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the verdict.
> To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English. It is
> un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus could
> not have been condemned. As soon as I can get at the facts I will
> undertake his rehabilitation myself if I can find an unpolitic
> publisher. It is a thing we ought to be willing to do for anyone
> who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would
> be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents. A person
> who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of
> spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political
> head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of
> executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence
> the other popes and politicians shrink to midgets for the
> microscope. I would like to see him. I would rather see him and
> shake him by the tail than any member of the European concert."
That's what I was thinking of. Where's it from?
Bill Snyder
"Concerning the Jews." Gutenberg has it in _The Man that
Corrupted Hadleyburg and Other Stories_, as well as in the
umbrella _Entire Project Gutenberg Works of Mark Twain_, with at
least one footnote that did not accompany the original essay.
Appears to have been originally published in _Harper's Magazine_
sometime in 1898 or '99. A couple of online sources say March,
1898; but another gives that date for the essay "Stirring Times in
Austria," which prompted the letter to which Twain was responding
in the later essay.
Nuclear Waste
"Tian" <tnha...@aceweb.com> wrote in message
news:gva5p...@enews2.newsguy.com...
And yet I can think of no mention of the Mormon religion which was anything
but complimentary. SIASL, Job, ITGO come to mind readily...
You and Johnathon would benefit from advice Professor Reisfeld gave to
Patricia Wynant Reisfeld. "Don't make so much stew from one oyster,
Peewee."
NW
Gene
september.org:
>> I got to thinking. There are only a few states Heinlein chose to call
>> home, and none of them were places like Utah with a particular religion.
>
> And yet I can think of no mention of the Mormon religion which was anything
> but complimentary. SIASL, Job, ITGO come to mind readily...
Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very positive.
Mike Schilling
> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
> news:gvd4pv$bdl$1...@news.eternal- september.org:
>
>>> I got to thinking. There are only a few states Heinlein chose to
>>> call home, and none of them were places like Utah with a particular
>>> religion.
>>
>> And yet I can think of no mention of the Mormon religion which was
>> anything but complimentary. SIASL, Job, ITGO come to mind
>> readily...
>
> Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very
> positive.
You'd swear it was based on Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker if not for the
copyright date.
Nuclear Waste
"Gene" <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9C1623B284DCCge...@207.115.33.102...
> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
> news:gvd4pv$bdl$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>>> I got to thinking. There are only a few states Heinlein chose to call
>>> home, and none of them were places like Utah with a particular religion.
>>
>> And yet I can think of no mention of the Mormon religion which was
>> anything
>> but complimentary. SIASL, Job, ITGO come to mind readily...
>
> Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very
> positive.
I suggest you reread SIASL. You have Fosterism's roots incorrect, and you
must have missed both Jubal and Mike's assessments of it.
Socially inferior, yes.
NW
Gene
september.org:
>> Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very
>> positive.
>
> I suggest you reread SIASL. You have Fosterism's roots incorrect, and you
> must have missed both Jubal and Mike's assessments of it.
I suggest 6yiou screw on your thinking cap. Mormonism was one of Heinlein's
historical models for Fosterism. Heinlein, by the way, was the author and an
actual person; Jubal Harshaw was a character in the book. Mormonism did not
start out as the conservative pillar of society it is today; they were, at
the top, sexual outlaws, practicing polygamy.
Nuclear Waste
> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
> news:gvehvf$ecv$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>>> Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very
>>> positive.
>>
>> I suggest you reread SIASL. You have Fosterism's roots incorrect, and
>> you
>> must have missed both Jubal and Mike's assessments of it.
>
> I suggest 6yiou screw on your thinking cap. Mormonism was one of
> Heinlein's
> historical models for Fosterism. Heinlein, by the way, was the author and
> an
> actual person; Jubal Harshaw was a character in the book. Mormonism did
> not
> start out as the conservative pillar of society it is today they were, at
> the top, sexual outlaws, practicing polygamy.
Again, read the book, then try some history. Fosterism was a synthesis of
all the major religions of the time, coupled with a message designed for the
time in which it was founded. That they sold "happiness" rather than hate
or fear was one of the things jubal noted as a plus to Gillian when
comparing it to the other religions. You also seem to be conflating the
structual specifics of the Elronners with the Mormons. I would actually
consider Mike's "church" closer structurally to the Mormon church.
As far as your thoughts on Jubal and RAH, what, exactly, were you driving
at? Do you have a nonfiction article of which the rest of us are unaware
whereing Heinlein discusses Fosterism? If not, it seems to me that the
words he penned into the characters is going to be all you can go by in this
case. Or do you wish me to simply say "Heinlein said" without referent to
where or when? ISTM that noting which character is "speaking" will, in most
cases, give you the book and section to which I am referring.
Your original assertion was that Fosterism was based in good measure on
Mormonism, and was not very positive. I have said why I disagree based on
the book in question, and the words penned by the author, perhaps you would
care to do as I suggested and read the book and tell me why you disagree?
IOW PPOR.
NW
Nuclear Waste
"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:gvemja$kv3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
OOPS! My mistake, Mike Church of All Worlds, although sexually not in tune
with the Mrs. Grundy's in St Petersburg, seem closer to the Elronners, not
the Mormons. My thimb fingers.
NW
Gene
september.org:
* Again, read the book, then try some history.
I've read the book many times. And it is you that seems to have a problem
with ignorance of history.
* Fosterism was a synthesis of
> all the major religions of the time, coupled with a message designed for
the
* time in which it was founded.
And that has no resemblance to historical Mormonism?
* That they sold "happiness" rather than hate
> or fear was one of the things jubal noted as a plus to Gillian when
* comparing it to the other religions.
And Smith was peddling what he thought of as an improved version of religion,
with some of its more disturbing elements toned down. For instance, only
really, really evil people are cast into the outer darkness with Satan. In
general, non-Mormons can look forward to ending up in one of the two lower
spheres of Heaven.
* You also seem to be conflating the
* structual specifics of the Elronners with the Mormons.
Elronism was another of Heinlein's historical models, but less significant.
Same for Islam.
> As far as your thoughts on Jubal and RAH, what, exactly, were you driving
* at?
My point was that Heinlein was not Harshaw, and you can't find out what
Heinlein thought by quoting Harshaw. You need to look at the issue on its
merits.
> Your original assertion was that Fosterism was based in good measure on
* Mormonism, and was not very positive.
Both claims are clearly true, despite your snot about it.
* I have said why I disagree based on
> the book in question, and the words penned by the author, perhaps you would
> care to do as I suggested and read the book and tell me why you disagree?
Learn something about Mormonism, and then compare that to Fosterism.
Matthew Malthouse
> Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very positive.
For values of not very positive that are outright damning. ;)
Matthew
--
Mail to this account goes to the bit bucket.
In the unlikely event you want to mail me replace usenet with my name
Nuclear Waste
> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
> news:gvemja$kv3$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
> * Again, read the book, then try some history.
>
> I've read the book many times. And it is you that seems to have a problem
> with ignorance of history.
Sure thing kid, just keep plugging, you might get something right.
>
> * Fosterism was a synthesis of
>> all the major religions of the time, coupled with a message designed for
> the
> * time in which it was founded.
>
> And that has no resemblance to historical Mormonism?
No more than to many other religions.
>
> * That they sold "happiness" rather than hate
>> or fear was one of the things jubal noted as a plus to Gillian when
> * comparing it to the other religions.
>
> And Smith was peddling what he thought of as an improved version of
> religion,
You are certain you read the book? Mike (and Ben, Duke, Jill and Dawn, and
possibly Patty) all characterize it as NOT a religion, but fulfilling the
role of a church. It is more a language school than anything, but they
brought it in as a church for the benefit of the marks. (Thus the idea of
the Temple of the {yramid or some such which is designed to bring in the
"fat and fatuous" females, some of whom will be neither after they grok the
teaching.
> with some of its more disturbing elements toned down. For instance, only
> really, really evil people are cast into the outer darkness with Satan. In
> general, non-Mormons can look forward to ending up in one of the two lower
> spheres of Heaven.
Actually Mike sent them to time out to start over, no Hell at all.
Fosterism allows anything as long as you are one fo the saved, but if you
are not, no matter how good you are, you are doomed to Hell. Nobody gets to
be baptised in your name later. Seems not to align well with the teaching
of The Pearl of a Great Price to me, but YMMW.
>
> * You also seem to be conflating the
> * structual specifics of the Elronners with the Mormons.
>
> Elronism was another of Heinlein's historical models, but less
> significant.
> Same for Islam.
>
>> As far as your thoughts on Jubal and RAH, what, exactly, were you driving
> * at?
>
> My point was that Heinlein was not Harshaw, and you can't find out what
> Heinlein thought by quoting Harshaw. You need to look at the issue on its
> merits.
Which merits? What do you know about Fosterism that you did not learn from
one of the characters in that book?
>
>> Your original assertion was that Fosterism was based in good measure on
> * Mormonism, and was not very positive.
>
> Both claims are clearly true, despite your snot about it.
Ah, yes, the "because I said so" defense.
>
> * I have said why I disagree based on
>> the book in question, and the words penned by the author, perhaps you
>> would
>> care to do as I suggested and read the book and tell me why you disagree?
>
> Learn something about Mormonism, and then compare that to Fosterism.
Hmm, shall we start with the D&C? Read SIASL, then get back to me.
NW
Gene
september.org:
>> * Fosterism was a synthesis of
>>> all the major religions of the time, coupled with a message designed for
>> the
>> * time in which it was founded.
>>
>> And that has no resemblance to historical Mormonism?
>
> No more than to many other religions.
Here's that ignorance of history. Most religions aren't even designed. I
don't think even Islam qualifies in the same way Mormonism does.
Gene
september.org:
>> And Smith was peddling what he thought of as an improved version of
>> religion,
>
> You are certain you read the book? Mike (and Ben, Duke, Jill and Dawn, and
> possibly Patty) all characterize it as NOT a religion, but fulfilling the
> role of a church.
Good grief-I meant Joseph Smith, of course, not Mike Smith.
Nuclear Waste
> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
> news:gvf5c0$gnq$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>>> * Fosterism was a synthesis of
>>>> all the major religions of the time, coupled with a message designed
>>>> for
>>> the
>>> * time in which it was founded.
>>>
>>> And that has no resemblance to historical Mormonism?
>>
>> No more than to many other religions.
>
> Here's that ignorance of history. Most religions aren't even designed. I
> don't think even Islam qualifies in the same way Mormonism does.
Ah, I see, Allah revealing himself to Muhhamed is "real" despite the obvious
borrowings from Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism to name the most
obvious examples of stealing directly, which he heatedly denied in his own
time despite the evidence to it in front of him, but the Angel Moroni and
the Gold tablets with The Pearl of a Great Price are "design". Totally
different! Perfectly clear. Your grasp of history exceeds mine. If only
I could somehow manage to not know anything about what I talk about but
think that mere bluster would get me through!
NW
--
Jesus, I take a vacation and odd things creep in.
Nuclear Waste
> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
> news:gvf5c0$gnq$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>>> And Smith was peddling what he thought of as an improved version of
>>> religion,
>>
>> You are certain you read the book? Mike (and Ben, Duke, Jill and Dawn,
>> and
>> possibly Patty) all characterize it as NOT a religion, but fulfilling the
>> role of a church.
>
> Good grief-I meant Joseph Smith, of course, not Mike Smith.
I don't see what difference that makes to the question at hand. Joseph
Smith, Jesus Christ, Moses or Muhammed, all thought they had a better take
on the religions that preceded them. They borrowed and co-opted as needed
and claimed new revelation. How are these different from Fosterism as
described by Heinlein? Why do you think that The LDS Church is somehow more
of a model?
NW
David
furiously:
>"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in news:gvf5c0$gnq$1...@news.eternal-
>september.org:
>
>>> * Fosterism was a synthesis of
>>>> all the major religions of the time, coupled with a message designed for
>>> the
>>> * time in which it was founded.
>>>
>>> And that has no resemblance to historical Mormonism?
>>
>> No more than to many other religions.
>
>Here's that ignorance of history. Most religions aren't even designed. I
>don't think even Islam qualifies in the same way Mormonism does.
Try Ba'hai. It has a little of all of the major religions.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness
Nuclear Waste
"David" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:36km15dppfeh3l005...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 23:24:54 GMT, Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> typed
> furiously:
>
>>"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
>>news:gvf5c0$gnq$1...@news.eternal-
>>september.org:
>>
>>>> * Fosterism was a synthesis of
>>>>> all the major religions of the time, coupled with a message designed
>>>>> for
>>>> the
>>>> * time in which it was founded.
>>>>
>>>> And that has no resemblance to historical Mormonism?
>>>
>>> No more than to many other religions.
>>
>>Here's that ignorance of history. Most religions aren't even designed. I
>>don't think even Islam qualifies in the same way Mormonism does.
>
> Try Ba'hai. It has a little of all of the major religions.
Good call, David, but I still boggle at this assertion about Islam, given
that it claims both the Torah and the Gospels and while it does not
explicitly claim Zoroastrianism, it borrowed from it, as well as having the
revelations which allowed him to marry etc etc.. Take any religion and you
find that it is a construct.
NW
Gene
september.org:
>> Here's that ignorance of history. Most religions aren't even designed. I
>> don't think even Islam qualifies in the same way Mormonism does.
>
> Ah, I see, Allah revealing himself to Muhhamed is "real" despite the
obvious
> borrowings from Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism to name
I don't think it is likely that the Koran is an outright hoax, which is what
Joseph Smith clearly perpetuated. Mohammed was exposed to a lot of stuff,
most particularly Nestorian Christianity, in oral form. That he went into
some kind of trance state and brought it back seems plausible, especially
considering how often the same sort if thing is allegedly done today, and
that is nothing like what Joseph Smith did in carefully concocting a Bible
pastiche.
Gene
september.org:
> I don't see what difference that makes to the question at hand. Joseph
> Smith, Jesus Christ, Moses or Muhammed, all thought they had a better take
> on the religions that preceded them. They borrowed and co-opted as needed
> and claimed new revelation. How are these different from Fosterism as
> described by Heinlein?
Um, apples and oranges. Jesus was plainly sincere. Mohammed was almost
certainly sincere. Joseph Smith was running a con, like Elron Hubbard. Moses
is not known securely even to have existed as a historical person, and
nothing much can be said about him.
Nuclear Waste
Gene, you accuse me of being ignorant of history, and then post this?
Really? I am sorry if you are a "true believer" and I do not mean to
offend, but I see zero difference in the two accounts, save that Joseph
Smith plaigarized from only one source. Then again, Joseph Smith did not
need these revelations to mary his Daughter in Law after the fact, so he
probably never felt the need to find more to copy from.
NW
Nuclear Waste
> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
> news:gvfc1o$2te$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> I don't see what difference that makes to the question at hand. Joseph
>> Smith, Jesus Christ, Moses or Muhammed, all thought they had a better
>> take
>> on the religions that preceded them. They borrowed and co-opted as
>> needed
>> and claimed new revelation. How are these different from Fosterism as
>> described by Heinlein?
>
> Um, apples and oranges. Jesus was plainly sincere. Mohammed was almost
> certainly sincere. Joseph Smith was running a con, like Elron Hubbard.
> Moses
> is not known securely even to have existed as a historical person, and
> nothing much can be said about him.
So it comes down to sincerity as judged by you? I am sorry, Gene, but
Muhhamed's own account is pretty damning. As to the historocity of Moses,
it seems unlikely that he did not exist, even if he is a pastiche.
NW
David
<myha...@mchsi.com> typed furiously:
Of course. All religions are designed to control their adherents.
David
furiously:
>"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in news:gvfc1o$2te$1...@news.eternal-
>september.org:
>
>> I don't see what difference that makes to the question at hand. Joseph
>> Smith, Jesus Christ, Moses or Muhammed, all thought they had a better take
>> on the religions that preceded them. They borrowed and co-opted as needed
>> and claimed new revelation. How are these different from Fosterism as
>> described by Heinlein?
>
>Um, apples and oranges. Jesus was plainly sincere. Mohammed was almost
>certainly sincere. Joseph Smith was running a con, like Elron Hubbard. Moses
>is not known securely even to have existed as a historical person, and
>nothing much can be said about him.
The same can be said about Jesus. There is no historical record of his
existence.
Mike Schilling
> historical person, and nothing much can be said about him.
Except that he supposes his toeses are roses erroneously.
Michael Stemper
>"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in news:gvd4pv$bdl$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> I got to thinking. There are only a few states Heinlein chose to call
>>> home, and none of them were places like Utah with a particular religion.
>>
>> And yet I can think of no mention of the Mormon religion which was anything
>> but complimentary. SIASL, Job, ITGO come to mind readily...
>
>Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very positive.
On the other hand, he (or apparent mouthpiece characters, anyway) spoke
quite favorably of Mormons in "If This Goes On --".
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Nuclear Waste
"Michael Stemper" <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in message
news:gvgotd$uhm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <Xns9C1623B284DCCge...@207.115.33.102>, Gene
> <ge...@chewbacca.org> writes:
>>"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
>>news:gvd4pv$bdl$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>>> I got to thinking. There are only a few states Heinlein chose to call
>>>> home, and none of them were places like Utah with a particular
>>>> religion.
>>>
>>> And yet I can think of no mention of the Mormon religion which was
>>> anything
>>> but complimentary. SIASL, Job, ITGO come to mind readily...
>>
>>Fosterism was based in good measure on Mormonism and was not very
>>positive.
>
> On the other hand, he (or apparent mouthpiece characters, anyway) spoke
> quite favorably of Mormons in "If This Goes On --".
As well as in SIASL itself.
NW
Gene
september.org:
> Gene, you accuse me of being ignorant of history, and then post this?
> Really? I am sorry if you are a "true believer" and I do not mean to
> offend, but I see zero difference in the two accounts, save that Joseph
> Smith plaigarized from only one source.
That you can see no difference between Mohammed and Joseph Smith is merely
reflective of your ignorance of history. Mohammed reportedly entered a trance
state, and what he said was taken down in dictation. This makes him
comparable to JZ Knight, Esther Hicks or Jane Roberts in some respects, but
not Joseph Smith, who carefully constricted the Book of Mormon and invented a
story for how it came to be.
And no, you moron, I am not a Moslem. Sheesh!
Gene
news:1ocn15lf6b0slvd6l...@4ax.com:
> Moses
>>is not known securely even to have existed as a historical person, and
>>nothing much can be said about him.
>
> The same can be said about Jesus. There is no historical record of his
* existence.
Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
position, held only by the ignorant.
> --
trag
> Of course, that isn't _all_ there is to religion; it also has a
> positive aspect, where people contemplate the mystery of
> consciousness, and acknowledge the importance of ethical behavior
> towards their fellow individuals. But it is the negative aspects that
> make the most noise.
I actually think that the positive aspect of religion isn't in any of
that philosophical stuff. It has become fashionable amongst a hip
segment of our society to claim that they are religious and believe in
a higher being but that they wish no truck with organized religion. I
think those people have it exactly backwards.
Believing in an all-powerful imaginary friend is silly. But churchs,
the organized part of religion provide a sense of community and a
social support structure. The ministers comfort the sick, dieing and
other folks who need an emotional hand. Teaching kids not to kill
each other in sunday school is probably a net good as well. To my
mind, all the good of religion is in the churches and none of it is in
the mystical/philosophical/superstitious aspect.
Unfortunately, those churches all seem to come with a superstitious
diaper load attached.
David M. Silver
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
> David <faro...@picknowl.com.au> rote in
> news:1ocn15lf6b0slvd6l...@4ax.com:
>
> > Moses
> >>is not known securely even to have existed as a historical person, and
> >>nothing much can be said about him.
> >
> > The same can be said about Jesus. There is no historical record of his
> * existence.
>
>
> Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
> position, held only by the ignorant.
>
> > --
> >
"Do not agree" what? That there is no historical record of Jesus? What
"This"? The position that there is no historical record of Jesus?
(Reading this above and recalling the confusion you induced elsewhere by
using "Smith" alone, I have to observe your writing is ambiguous in
expression on important points and wonder whether that is deliberate.)
If you're claiming that the alleged mention of Jesus in Titus Flavius
Josephus' _Antiquities_ is a valid and conclusive historical record,
it's at least thirty-five years too late to be a contemporaneous record,
and Josephus did not write his work until well after the 70 AD
destruction of Jerusalem. Most authorities put the date of writing at
about 94 AD, nearly sixty years after. Josephus himself, in fact, was
not even born until about four years after the date of Jesus'
Cruxifixion, if such indeed occurred. Since it cannot be said to be
contemporaneous, it is not, in the first instance and strictly speaking,
the sort of "historical record" that may be relied upon to conclusively
prove existence, even if the passage is determined to be authentic.
As to the claim that those who have expressed their dispute concerning
the mention's authenticity, i.e., that it is merely a forgery and
interpolation made into the authentic Josephus by later Christian
scribe-copyists, are expressing a "flat earth theory," that is absurd
statement to make for the following reasons.
Since the Sixteenth Century scholars have debated the authenticity of
the passage. Since 1938 alone, there have been significantly more than
eighty studies on all sides of the question.
See, Robert E. Van Voorst, _Jesus Outside the New Testament_ pp. 81 et
seq. (Eerdmans Publishing, 2000) ISBN 0802843689, 9780802843685.
Dr. Van Voorst summarizes the pros and cons of the various arguments,
and any reasonable reader can see there is much to be said rationally on
all sides of the question.
That is far, far from a flat earth viewpoint.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
David
furiously:
>David <faro...@picknowl.com.au> rote in
>news:1ocn15lf6b0slvd6l...@4ax.com:
>
>> Moses
>>>is not known securely even to have existed as a historical person, and
>>>nothing much can be said about him.
>>
>> The same can be said about Jesus. There is no historical record of his
>* existence.
>
>
>Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
>position, held only by the ignorant.
>
Then please cite one and the sources of his belief. As I understand
the situation no contemporary account of Jewish history mentions Jesus
at all. The Romans were meticulous record keepers yet there is no
record of any crucifixion on or around that date or in that place
involving three people.
Gene
643446.123...@news.individual.net:
> "Do not agree" what? That there is no historical record of Jesus? What
> "This"? The position that there is no historical record of Jesus?
Professional historians are aware that there is documentary evidence in
support of the existence of Jesus strong enough to show that he actually did
exist, if not to come to exact conclusions about many elements of his life.
This is simply a fact, easily checked by reference to the relevant
literature.
Gene
> Dr. Van Voorst summarizes the pros and cons of the various arguments,
> and any reasonable reader can see there is much to be said rationally on
> all sides of the question.
>
> That is far, far from a flat earth viewpoint.
The controversy over the Testimonium is not the same as the controversy over
the documentary reverence for Jesus. It isn't even the strongest such
evidence which can be found in Josephus, let along elsewhere. If you would
read real historians rather than amateurs with an axe to grind, you would
know that.
Mike Schilling
.
>
> The controversy over the Testimonium is not the same as the
> controversy over the documentary reverence for Jesus. It isn't even
> the strongest such evidence which can be found in Josephus, let along
> elsewhere. If you would read real historians rather than amateurs
> with an axe to grind, you would know that.
Y'know, Gene, lately you've developed an almost Shawn-like habit of sweeping
statements justified by appeals to unnamed authority. I, for one, would
like to know the names of these historians and what documentary reverence,
that is, evidence they point to.
Gene
news:fbho15pm1olj4t9ov...@4ax.com:
>>Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
>>position, held only by the ignorant.
>>
* Then please cite one and the sources of his belief.
This is like asking for evidence for evolution. You can go to the library and
check out any of the books on the subject by actual qualified experts.
Michael Grant, not a specialist in the field, gives a useful point of view
for that very reason. Authors like E. P. Sanders or Gaza Vermes who put Jesus
in the context of Judaism I think are more reliable than those like John
Dominic Crossan or Morton Smith, who seem to have trouble with the concept,
but that's really not relevant to the issue of existence.
As for textual support, the first thing to consult are the letters of Paul,
not Josephus. But talking to someone who doesn't already know that is futile.
Go learn something first.
David M. Silver
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
> "David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> rote in news:ag.plusone-
> 643446.123...@news.individual.net:
>
> > "Do not agree" what? That there is no historical record of Jesus? What
> > "This"? The position that there is no historical record of Jesus?
>
> Professional historians are aware that there is documentary evidence in
> support of the existence of Jesus strong enough to show that he actually did
> exist, if not to come to exact conclusions about many elements of his life.
> This is simply a fact, easily checked by reference to the relevant
> literature.
I'll simply observe that there are folk out there who regularly evaluate
arguments somewhat like yours which make reference to evidence and
authorities. When they encounter someone who habitually omits
identifying either the evidence or the authority, or both, as you have,
they use a technical term to describe the habitual omitter. They call
them "incompetents," and point out exactly how incompetent that conduct
is. Thereafter, they ignore what argument is made.
That's what I'll do with you henceforth. Go sit in a corner and color.
Bye.
Walter Bushell
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
Ah, but are you a Seth Speaker?
David
furiously:
>David <faro...@picknowl.com.au> rote in
>news:fbho15pm1olj4t9ov...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
>>>position, held only by the ignorant.
>>>
>* Then please cite one and the sources of his belief.
>
>This is like asking for evidence for evolution.
Peculiar. There is much evidence for evolution and absolutely none for
creationism/intelligent design.
Do you think Darwin made up evolution out of thin air?
>You can go to the library and
>check out any of the books on the subject by actual qualified experts.
>Michael Grant, not a specialist in the field, gives a useful point of view
>for that very reason. Authors like E. P. Sanders or Gaza Vermes who put Jesus
>in the context of Judaism I think are more reliable than those like John
>Dominic Crossan or Morton Smith, who seem to have trouble with the concept,
>but that's really not relevant to the issue of existence.
>
Well, Jesus, if he existed, was an orthodox Jew as evidenced by the
New Testament itself.
>
>As for textual support, the first thing to consult are the letters of Paul,
>not Josephus. But talking to someone who doesn't already know that is futile.
>Go learn something first.
Yes, Paul was certainly a prime mover in the new religion becoming
accepted. Paul, however, never met Jesus in person so it is preaching
by the converted and not contemporaneous with Jesus. The earliest
Gospels were not written until some forty years after the alleged
death of Jesus.
Even Josephus only has a minor mention of Jesus which has been
described as an insertion by a copyist who thought there should be
something in the record because it is in the middle of a dissertation
about something else entirely.
However you said it correctly talking to someone who only believes,
not knows, is futile. Go learn something yourself.
Gene
3.1...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Y'know, Gene, lately you've developed an almost Shawn-like habit of
sweeping
> statements justified by appeals to unnamed authority. I, for one, would
> like to know the names of these historians and what documentary reverence,
> that is, evidence they point to.
Sorry, Mike, but this really is just like asking for evidence for evolution
which can be answered by consulting ANY reputable source or standard
reference work, Then, of course, there's always Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The trouble is that people don't believe the actual historians, but consult
amateurs and web pages and what-not to get their evidence. I don't see any
difference between this and turning to the creation science people for views
on evolution, rather than actual biologists. You're an intelligent person,
Mike, and I'm mystified: why does it surprise you that I treat this whole
business with contempt? How do YOU treat creation science types, or people
who scoff at Einstein, and the like?
As for Shawn: do you really think history is comparable as an area of study
with economics, and do you really think that when Shawn claimed to have a
consensus of economists supporting his views, he actually did? In my view,
neither of these statements are true.
Here are some quotes from historians to amuse yourself with:
Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus
existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to
be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the
possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than
about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
--Graham Stanton
To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It
has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.'
In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non
historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in
disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the
contrary.
-- Michael Grant
Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as
so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them
completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a
scholarly question.
--Robert Van Voorst
The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint
Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64,
are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has
questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James,
and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his
flesh.
--Will Durant
Bill Patterson
> "David M. Silver" <ag.plus...@verizon.net> rote in news:ag.plusone-
> 643446.12310526052...@news.individual.net:
>
> > "Do not agree" what? That there is no historical record of Jesus? What
> > "This"? The position that there is no historical record of Jesus?
>
> Professional historians are aware that there is documentary evidence in
> support of the existence of Jesus strong enough to show that he actually did
> exist, if not to come to exact conclusions about many elements of his life.
> This is simply a fact, easily checked by reference to the relevant
> literature.
>
> --
> "It's not like there is much that is universal among economists." -- Shawn
> Wilson
Arrgh! Epistemology, ptui! Logic? What's that? Rulesof evidence?
Never heard of it.! Arrgh!
As a professional historian-in-training, allow me to snort in your
general direction. That there are documentary references of suitable
antiquity is not in dispute. What is in dispute is their evidentiary
value, which is extremely shaky.
Gene
fd7a01...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> As a professional historian-in-training, allow me to snort in your
> general direction. That there are documentary references of suitable
> antiquity is not in dispute. What is in dispute is their evidentiary
* value, which is extremely shaky.
Kindly cite a professional historian of good reputation who supports the
Jesus Myth theory. Since you claim to be an expert, this should be easy for
you.
djinn
> Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@gmail.com> rote in news:5bcdeda0-36a4-402f-969f-
> fd7a019de...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > As a professional historian-in-training, allow me to snort in your
> > general direction. That there are documentary references of suitable
> > antiquity is not in dispute. What is in dispute is their evidentiary
>
> * value, which is extremely shaky.
>
> Kindly cite a professional historian of good reputation who supports the
> Jesus Myth theory. Since you claim to be an expert, this should be easy for
> you.
>
the Fosterites on the LDS. What you're doing looks like the Wooky
Defense.
Anneli Halme
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:24:11 GMT, Gene <g...@chewbacca.org> typed
> furiously:
>
> >David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> rote in
> >news:fbho15pm1olj4t9ov...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
> >>>position, held only by the ignorant.
>
> >* Then please cite one and the sources of his belief.
>
> >This is like asking for evidence for evolution.
>
> Peculiar. There is much evidence for evolution and absolutely none for
> creationism/intelligent design.
>
> Do you think Darwin made up evolution out of thin air?
>
> >You can go to the library and
> >check out any of the books on the subject by actual qualified experts.
> >Michael Grant, not a specialist in the field, gives a useful point of view
> >for that very reason. Authors like E. P. Sanders or Gaza Vermes who put Jesus
> >in the context of Judaism I think are more reliable than those like John
> >Dominic Crossan or Morton Smith, who seem to have trouble with the concept,
> >but that's really not relevant to the issue of existence.
>
> Well, Jesus, if he existed, was an orthodox Jew as evidenced by the
> New Testament itself.
>
jew, that was the point in all gospels, it was Paul who got the
gentiles accepted.
>
> >As for textual support, the first thing to consult are the letters of Paul,
> >not Josephus. But talking to someone who doesn't already know that is futile.
> >Go learn something first.
>
> Yes, Paul was certainly a prime mover in the new religion becoming
> accepted. Paul, however, never met Jesus in person so it is preaching
> by the converted and not contemporaneous with Jesus. The earliest
> Gospels were not written until some forty years after the alleged
> death of Jesus.
>
> Even Josephus only has a minor mention of Jesus which has been
> described as an insertion by a copyist who thought there should be
> something in the record because it is in the middle of a dissertation
> about something else entirely.
>
The diciples change from people withoutt hope, turning to people who
went courageousely missioning. it seems like the authour was an
eywitness.
Anneli
David
<Anneli...@gmail.com> typed furiously:
Yet only Luke and Mathew the tax collector were literate.
Bill Patterson
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
While this is not my area of study, I suggest you're greatly
oversimplifying a struggle within early Christianity that played
itself out over two centuries involving several major factions. The
more usual view IIRC is that at about the same time the Peter faction
established in Rome to minister to the gentiles, according to the
Great Commission (and the Pauline letters are part of the same general
movement), and the Family-of-Jesus faction stayed in Israel insisting
that Jesus' mission was essentially Messianic, Over a fair amount of
time, the Roman/gentile faction survived and flourished and the Israel
faction faded away, while *a*buncha*other*stuff* was going on and the
See of Rome became the head of the church.
IIRC also the earliest of the accepted gospels was written about 90
c,e,, which is to say 60 or so years after those events. I don't know
which "author" you're referring to, but I don't know of any eyewitness
accounts.
Will in New Haven
> "Nuclear Waste" <myhan...@mchsi.com> rote innews:gvfpq3$mca$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
> > Gene, you accuse me of being ignorant of history, and then post this?
> > Really? I am sorry if you are a "true believer" and I do not mean to
> > offend, but I see zero difference in the two accounts, save that Joseph
> > Smith plaigarized from only one source.
>
> That you can see no difference between Mohammed and Joseph Smith is merely
> reflective of your ignorance of history. Mohammed reportedly entered a trance
> state, and what he said was taken down in dictation. This makes him
> comparable to JZ Knight, Esther Hicks or Jane Roberts in some respects, but
> not Joseph Smith, who carefully constricted the Book of Mormon and invented a
> story for how it came to be.
>
> And no, you moron, I am not a Moslem. Sheesh!
It seems odd to me that you _accept_ the claims made by Muslims: that
Mohammed went into a trance, that his visions were taken down in
dictation, that he did not in fact _design_ al Islam on the roots of
Middle Eastern monotheism., while being so cynical about Joseph Smith.
Smith's claims about finding the book, etc, are more fanciful on the
surface but they are both claiming divine revelation. I don't see any
reason to accept either one. Or to accept the _sincerity_ of either
one. Obviously, it is possible to believe that you have divine
revelation when you do not. But this "Jesus was sincere, Mohammed was
sincere but Joseph Smith was a con man" isn't all that obvious on the
face of it. And if it is possible that you can sincerely believe you
have divine revelation, I guess it is also possible that you found
gold tablets with the book of Mormon written on them, given to you by
an angel.
--
Will in New Haven
Mike Van Pelt
Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>IIRC also the earliest of the accepted gospels was written about 90
>c,e,, which is to say 60 or so years after those events. I don't know
>which "author" you're referring to, but I don't know of any eyewitness
>accounts.
It seems to me that if any of the Gospels were written after the
destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, that event would
have to have been mentioned. The closest, perhaps, was Jesus'
statement in John about "Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up", but John immediately follows that up with
a parenthetical "He was talking about his body, not the actual
temple" explanation. And John is generally considered to have
been the later of the Gospels; it's the only one where the writer
seems to consider his new faith to be something separate from
Judaism, a perspective which seems missing in the Synoptics.
In at least one of Paul's letters, regarding the events of
Jesus' life, he writes "You don't need me to tell you all
this. You were eye-witnesses to these events."
Gene
09a8-43a3-85e...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> It seems odd to me that you _accept_ the claims made by Muslims: that
> Mohammed went into a trance, that his visions were taken down in
> dictation, that he did not in fact _design_ al Islam on the roots of
> Middle Eastern monotheism., while being so cynical about Joseph Smith.
Have you read both the Koran and the Book of Mormon? I have. The Book of
Mormon is clearly a quite different and much more organized thing. In any
case, the point is not that the Koran can't be a hoax, but that neither I nor
you can show it is. Moreover, Mohammed even indulges in self-criticism in it.
Neither is true of the Book of Mormon. And kindly note, I didn't claim that
Mohammed was sincere, only that most probably he was, and the same is clearly
false about Joseph Smith.
It seems to me you and others are indulging in a knee-jerk, unreflective
reaction which ignores significant differences.
David M. Silver
Mike Van Pelt <m...@calweb.com> wrote:
> In article
> <318744e8-00ef-4309...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >IIRC also the earliest of the accepted gospels was written about 90
> >c,e,, which is to say 60 or so years after those events. I don't know
> >which "author" you're referring to, but I don't know of any eyewitness
> >accounts.
>
> It seems to me that if any of the Gospels were written after the
> destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, that event would
> have to have been mentioned.
One scholar, John A. T. Robinson agrees with you and concluded that all
of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his
judgement that there is little textual evidence that the New Testament
reflects knowledge of the Temple's AD�70 destruction. You two and those
others who follow Bishop Robinson's thinking could be right.
However, it would depend, wouldn't it, Mike?
I'm not sure all would agree with Bill that the earlier seems to have
been written about 90 C.E., Mark. The first of the three synoptic
gospels, is thought by most modern writers to have probably been written
between 65 and 70 C.E. Titus, Vespasian's son, captured Jerusalem and
destroyed the temple in 70, before mid-year; but the Jewish rebellion
had continued from 66 onward. Assume Mark's author finished before the
temple was destroyed and decided to say nothing of the ongoing rebellion.
The next two synoptic gospels, Matthew (majority argue c. 70�100, with
some conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly those
that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written) and Luke (majority
argue c. 80�100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85), are thought
by those who have studied them to each have mainly borrowed passages
from the earlier Mark and at least one other common source, lost to
history, called 'Q' by scholars.
Largely borrowed, Matthew and Luke may simply have followed the format
set in Mark and ignored the worldly events regarding Jerusalem. After
all, where is the kingdom Christ said he brought? The authors may have
thought there to be good reason for not directing attention to current
worldly matters in relating events focused upon a very differently-sited
world taking place a generation and a half earlier. What was happening
in the world post 70 C.E. was a distraction for those concerned with the
soul or spirit.
According to Eusebius, [after the destruction of Jerusalem] Vespasian
then ordered all descendants of the royal line of David to be hunted
down, causing the Jews to be persecuted from province to province.
Several modern historians (eg., Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of
Early Christianity p. 31; 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, "JEWS")
have suggested that Vespasian, already having been told by Josephus
that he was prophesied to become emperor whilst in Judaea, was
probably reacting to other widely-known Messianic prophecies
circulating at the time, to suppress any rival claimants arising from
that dynasty.
-- "Aftermath of the civil war"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian#Great_Jewish_Revolt
Some portions of the three synoptic gospels were not concluded until
long after 70. The first two books of Matthew and Luke were added
sometime later, and the traditional ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) was
most likely composed early in the second century of the Christian Era.
Finally, the writing of the last gospel, John, is placed by most in its
entirety between 90 and 110 C.E. It seems written in stages so there was
no one date of composition.
The focus of it wasn't the destruction of any temple, it is "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God..."
Yowie
news:af961bea-09a8-43a3...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
Yowie waves at Will from SRQ. Hi Will.
Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
Nuclear Waste
"Gene" <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9C176CE26B6Bge...@207.115.33.102...
With all due respect, (speaking of conflicted...) a refusal to accept
dubious after the fact and self serving reports of a "trance state" as
having historical signifcance does not indicate an ignorance of history.
Not evaluating a primitive pedophile's appeal to authority revealed only to
him from "Allah" as mere data to be assimilated seems to me to be even more
indicative of an ignorance of human nature and of historical precedence than
any imagined by you.
I will simply leave you to your trances and voodoo version of history.
Never try to teach a pig to sing...
NW
Nuclear Waste
> David <faro...@picknowl.com.au> rote in
> news:1ocn15lf6b0slvd6l...@4ax.com:
>
>> Moses
>>>is not known securely even to have existed as a historical person, and
>>>nothing much can be said about him.
>>
>> The same can be said about Jesus. There is no historical record of his
> * existence.
>
>
> Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
> position, held only by the ignorant.
Which professional historians, and upon what records are you (or they)
basing this claim?
NW
Nuclear Waste
"Gene"
> Here are some quotes from historians to amuse yourself with:
>
> Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus
> existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has
> to
> be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with
> the
> possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than
> about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
>
> --Graham Stanton
Doctor of Divinity, not a historian by training or vocation, an apologist
FOR the Church. Perhaps you subscribe to Creation Science as well?
> To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory.
> It
> has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank
> scholars.'
> In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non
> historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded
> in
> disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the
> contrary.
>
> -- Michael Grant
The only historian on your list, yet still a church apologist.
>
> Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments
> as
> so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore
> them
> completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead
> as a
> scholarly question.
>
> --Robert Van Voorst
Another Professor of new Testament Studies (see Stanton) not a historian,
just another preacher with an axe to grind.
>
>
> The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to
> Saint
> Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D.
> 64,
> are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has
> questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter,
> James,
> and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his
> flesh.
>
> --Will Durant
Read the FIRST line...
Christians who believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, and Muslims who
believe Mohommed is the prophet of Allah. You seem to have a good corner on
historical reality.
NW
Bill Patterson
> In article <318744e8-00ef-4309-81a7-796ba9197...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
You know, LOTS of stuff that is well documented otherwise is not
mentioned in scripture -- like Pompey's defiling the temple, an event
of major uproar at the tine, The kind of historical backformation you
are doing is called "wishful thinking." It's not even historical
reasoning, it's the construction of a fantasy by tortuous
reinterpretation of insecurely held factoids.
David
furiously:
>In article <318744e8-00ef-4309...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>IIRC also the earliest of the accepted gospels was written about 90
>>c,e,, which is to say 60 or so years after those events. I don't know
>>which "author" you're referring to, but I don't know of any eyewitness
>>accounts.
>
>It seems to me that if any of the Gospels were written after the
>destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, that event would
>have to have been mentioned.
Why? It was not relevant to the story they wanted to tell.
Bill Patterson
> In article <4a1d95fb$0$25089$d368...@news.calweb.com>,> > <318744e8-00ef-4309-81a7-796ba9197...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
> � � �Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
> � � �Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
While I don't have a horse in this particular race, I nevertheless
don't believe the earlier dates for the gospels. I think in terms of
the historiography, the failure to mention the destruction of the
temple is a very frail reed to hang such analysis from. Nevertheless,
I would be willing to go along with the earlier dating if some actual,
you know, evidence were produced, or at least some more rigorous
argument.
At a guess, The Book was assembled by people to whom the destruction
of the Temple was not an important historical event. "Go ye therefore
and teach all nations." It was an important event to the faction that
stayed in Israel to convert the Jews and gradually faded away, never
having had a Donation of Constantine to secularize them.
David
<myha...@mchsi.com> typed furiously:
>
>"Gene" <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote in message
>news:Xns9C176CE26B6Bge...@207.115.33.102...
>> "Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> rote in
>> news:gvfpq3$mca$1...@news.eternal-
>> september.org:
>>
>>> Gene, you accuse me of being ignorant of history, and then post this?
>>> Really? I am sorry if you are a "true believer" and I do not mean to
>>> offend, but I see zero difference in the two accounts, save that Joseph
>>> Smith plaigarized from only one source.
>>
>> That you can see no difference between Mohammed and Joseph Smith is merely
>> reflective of your ignorance of history. Mohammed reportedly entered a
>> trance
>> state, and what he said was taken down in dictation. This makes him
>> comparable to JZ Knight, Esther Hicks or Jane Roberts in some respects,
>> but
>> not Joseph Smith, who carefully constricted the Book of Mormon and
>> invented a
>> story for how it came to be.
>>
>> And no, you moron, I am not a Moslem. Sheesh!
>
>With all due respect, (speaking of conflicted...) a refusal to accept
>dubious after the fact and self serving reports of a "trance state" as
>having historical signifcance does not indicate an ignorance of history.
>Not evaluating a primitive pedophile's
Proof that Mohammed was a paedophile please. Quit using loaded words
in an effort to discredit someone.
Nuclear Waste
"David" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:eesr15hovv56tsng3...@4ax.com...
Sorry, David, you missed it. The opening was the clue that I was responding
in kind to his insult, rather than having any more actual discussion. As to
the charge, I simply used the common AFH expedient of judging another time
or culture by as narrow a definition of my own time as I could. (RAH was a
(insert perjorative here because he wrote (x)) IOW I was merely echoing a
tired argument without bothering with citation to prove that I, too, could
be an asshole. The other adjectives were similarly loaded. I blame early
exposure to NNTN and an unsavory fellow named Zeb Jones. (See also: Salvor
Hardin, Louis Wu et al)
As to the "proof" Aisha was betrothed to Mohommed at 6 years old. The
marriage is said to have been consumated at 9. I can not see how any grown
man could possibly do this. I am not from there/ then, however, so I will
simply judge those here/ now who engage in such behavior. I will also say
that my personal prejudices do cause me to react negatively to anything else
about the prophet Mohommed based on this single datum. Like Duke discussing
cannibalism in SIASL, I am inexorably a product of my society.
NW
Gene
0927e6...@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> It's not even historical
> reasoning, it's the construction of a fantasy by tortuous
> reinterpretation of insecurely held factoids.
Speaking of historical reasoning, you still haven't cited a professional
historian of good reputation who supports the Jesus Myth theory. Since you
are a self-proclaimed expert, you should be able to back up your claims.
Jim Lovejoy
news:gvfbn6$bt$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> If only
> I could somehow manage to not know anything about what I talk about but
> think that mere bluster would get me through!
>
Your wish has been granted.
Jim Lovejoy
news:4a1d95fb$0$25089$d36...@news.calweb.com:
> In article
> <318744e8-00ef-4309...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>IIRC also the earliest of the accepted gospels was written about 90
>>c,e,, which is to say 60 or so years after those events. I don't know
>>which "author" you're referring to, but I don't know of any eyewitness
>>accounts.
>
> It seems to me that if any of the Gospels were written after the
> destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, that event would
> have to have been mentioned.
So if anyone wrote a biography of the life of Lincoln, and didn't mention
World War I, it was written before 1914?
Good to know. I'll have to remember that.
David M. Silver
"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory.
> > It
> > has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank
> > scholars.'
> > In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non
> > historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded
> > in
> > disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the
> > contrary.
> >
> > -- Michael Grant
>
> The only historian on your list, yet still a church apologist.
Actually, it is stretching it to call him a historian in its modern
sense. He was a classicist, i.e., one who mainly studied, critiqued and
taught classic (usually only Greek and Latin until very recently)
literature, and numismatist (collected coins). He was a Professor of
Humanity (~ humanities?) at Edinburgh University. If you look at the
published list of his writings, those writings insofar they are
"history" are, with very minor exceptions, restricted to the writers of
classic literature (the ancient Greeks and Romans), including writings
of a historical nature. History used to be considered part of "classics"
but of late, it is increasingly classified as a social science
(anthropology, communication studies, economics, human geography,
history, political science, psychology and sociology), especially when
chronology is the focus.
An example of a classicist, the best known one, was A. E. Housman,
Professor of Latin at University College London and later, at Cambridge.
Most know him as a poet (_A Shropshire Lad_ and later collections).
I had Latin (and the obligatory half-semester of ancient Greek they used
to give in your fourth year of Latin) at secondary level and a couple
years at university level. They have to teach it alongside great doses
of Roman history and some Greek history because you cannot understand
the Latin works they teach without a great deal of it. To any extent,
therefore, any Latin teacher is in minor part a teacher of history.
--
David M. Silver
Gene
september.org:
>> --Graham Stanton
>
* Doctor of Divinity, not a historian by training or vocation
WRONG. It's true he is a divinity professor at Cambridge, but his field is
history and that is what he reseats, writes about, and teaches. He's not a
theologian, but a scholar whose research interest is early Christianity. I'm
afraid the divinity department at Cambridge is precisely the sort of place
you'd expect to find an expert on this stuff. Where else do you suppose they
will be found? Where are YOUR cited experts employed? Oh I forgot-you don't
have any.
* , an apologist
* FOR the Church.
Which Church? There's no religious test to be a divinity professor at
Cambridge, and I don't know what church the man attends, if he attends any at
all. Do you?
* Perhaps you subscribe to Creation Science as well?
If you don't accept the experts in the field as qualified, to whom will you
turn inserted?
>> -- Michael Grant
>
> The only historian on your list, yet still a church apologist.
What in hell makes you say that? If I recall correctly, Grant states he is
not any kind of religious believer. You, on the other hand, are ignoring
facts because they fail to conform to your religio-philosophical beliefs.
Its' not as stupid as young earth creationism, but it is arrived at in
basically the same way. If you don't agree, dig up some experts who support
your position.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I wonder how many "well known" figures in ancient history could pass
a similar test. After all, if we just know them from Herotodus, we have
to believe in gold digging, camel racing ants. Occam's razor and all that..
I think R.A. Lafferty did a story involving something similar once.
"How many King Henry's were there? No matter -- History will
condense it down to one".
Come to think of it, I believe I read somewhere that all accounts
of Alexander The Great by contemporary sources have been lost.
Perhaps Alexander is simply an invented character who personifies
the conquering spirit gripping the Macedonian nation.. :-)
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Gene
september.org:
>> Strangely, professional historians do not agree. This is a flat earth
>> position, held only by the ignorant.
>
> Which professional historians, and upon what records are you (or they)
* basing this claim
All of them, to within epsilon. Robert McNair Price is a professor at an
unaccredited university, which I am sure is much more prestigious than a
diploma mill like Cambridge. Earl Doherty has published in a journal edited
by Price. Doherty claims or once claimed to have some sort of degree in
history, but it seems to be hard to pin down exactly what or where obtained,
and some people express skepticism. As for records, try your local library.
Jonathan Schattke
> You know, LOTS of stuff that is well documented otherwise is not
> mentioned in scripture -- like Pompey's defiling the temple, an event
> of major uproar at the tine, The kind of historical backformation you
> are doing is called "wishful thinking." It's not even historical
> reasoning, it's the construction of a fantasy by tortuous
> reinterpretation of insecurely held factoids.
Um... that was the start of the Book of Maccabees - part of the
Septaugint and the Vulgate.
Why would they mention it in telling a story about events hundreds of
years later? That would be like me mentioning the revolutionary Boston
Massacre in a story about my brother going to Boston. Unless he visited
the site and remarked on it specifically, it's not going to be mentioned.
David
<myha...@mchsi.com> typed furiously:
OK.
>As to the "proof" Aisha was betrothed to Mohommed at 6 years old. The
>marriage is said to have been consumated at 9. I can not see how any grown
>man could possibly do this.
At nine, in the climate and region in which she lived, Aisha was
post-pubertal so that negates the charge of paedophilia. The mores of
the times allowed such things which would likely be not welcome today
so Mohammed did nothing wrong _for his time_.
>I am not from there/ then, however, so I will
>simply judge those here/ now who engage in such behavior. I will also say
>that my personal prejudices do cause me to react negatively to anything else
>about the prophet Mohommed based on this single datum. Like Duke discussing
>cannibalism in SIASL, I am inexorably a product of my society.
>
Then you should learn the mores and culture of the time and place
before you pass judgement.
Jonathan Schattke
> On 27 May 2009 19:35:49 GMT, Mike Van Pelt <m...@calweb.com> typed
> furiously:
>
>> In article <318744e8-00ef-4309...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> IIRC also the earliest of the accepted gospels was written about 90
>>> c,e,, which is to say 60 or so years after those events. I don't know
>>> which "author" you're referring to, but I don't know of any eyewitness
>>> accounts.
>> It seems to me that if any of the Gospels were written after the
>> destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, that event would
>> have to have been mentioned.
>
> Why? It was not relevant to the story they wanted to tell.
Yes, but if they were writing after the destroyed Temple, they might
want to describe the layout a bit, since the reader could not go and look.
Nuclear Waste
"Jim Lovejoy" <nos...@devnull.spam> wrote in message
news:ofmdne82XfD6koPX...@nventure.com...
Other than being another twit with nothing to add, what, exactly is you
position on the question? Do you really believe what Gene says?
Bill Patterson
> Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@gmail.com> rote in news:11088f1e-8eef-40ca-923b-
> 0927e62bf...@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > It's not even historical
> > reasoning, it's the construction of a fantasy by tortuous
> > reinterpretation of insecurely held factoids.
>
> Speaking of historical reasoning, you still haven't cited a professional
> historian of good reputation who supports the Jesus Myth theory. Since you
> are a self-proclaimed expert, you should be able to back up your claims.
>
> --
> "It's not like there is much that is universal among economists." -- Shawn
> Wilson
Your favorite biblical history theory sucks.
Hmm. Exactly how does this "not my area of study" and "don't have a
horse in this race" make me a "self-proclaimed expert"? What I do
have a bit of training in, is historiography, with related
epistemological fields. And I can recognize "no evidence" when I see
it.
I'll take evidence over authorities any day, thank you.
Bill Patterson
> In article <gvkq3b$2m...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
> � � �Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
> � � �Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Side comment sparked by the mention of history as a social science:
When I was majoring in history, part of the optional ancillary
coursework on offer was several courses and workshops in
historiography that covered not only soft stuff like theoretics and
modes of interpretation, but also harder stuff that brought in use of
statistics, archaeology, and application of science tools to
specialized problems. Less than 5% of degree program participants
took any of those courses. So it's there and available as tools if
historians want to take advantage of the stuff.
Walter Bushell
<af961bea-09a8-43a3...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 1:42�pm, Gene <g...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
> > "Nuclear Waste" <myhan...@mchsi.com> rote innews:gvfpq3$mca$1...@news.eternal-
> > september.org:
> >
> > > Gene, you accuse me of being ignorant of history, and then post this?
> > > Really? �I am sorry if you are a "true believer" and I do not mean to
> > > offend, but I see zero difference in the two accounts, save that Joseph
> > > Smith plaigarized from only one source. �
> >
> > That you can see no difference between Mohammed and Joseph Smith is merely
> > reflective of your ignorance of history. Mohammed reportedly entered a
> > trance
> > state, and what he said was taken down in dictation. This makes him
> > comparable to JZ Knight, Esther Hicks or Jane Roberts in some respects, but
> > not Joseph Smith, who carefully constricted the Book of Mormon and invented
> > a
> > story for how it came to be.
> >
> > And no, you moron, I am not a Moslem. Sheesh!
>
> It seems odd to me that you _accept_ the claims made by Muslims: that
> Mohammed went into a trance, that his visions were taken down in
> dictation, that he did not in fact _design_ al Islam on the roots of
> Middle Eastern monotheism., while being so cynical about Joseph Smith.
> Smith's claims about finding the book, etc, are more fanciful on the
> surface but they are both claiming divine revelation. I don't see any
> reason to accept either one. Or to accept the _sincerity_ of either
> one. Obviously, it is possible to believe that you have divine
> revelation when you do not. But this "Jesus was sincere, Mohammed was
> sincere but Joseph Smith was a con man" isn't all that obvious on the
> face of it. And if it is possible that you can sincerely believe you
> have divine revelation, I guess it is also possible that you found
> gold tablets with the book of Mormon written on them, given to you by
> an angel.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
We have substantial evidence of Joe Smith being a convicted con man, and
he was killed eventually for his womanizing.
Bill Patterson
My Protestant-upbringing slip is showing. Thanks for catching the
error about Maccabees.
I don't follow the reasoning though about "hundreds of years later."
The crucifixion is supposed to have happened, IIRC, around 28-30 C.E.;
the period of the Pauline letters 50-62 c.e., the destruction of the
second temple was in 70 C.E. The last composition dates for the
gospels I read placed them around 90-120 c.e. So these are roughly
contemporaneous events.
Will in New Haven
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in messagenews:af961bea-09a8-43a3...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
Waves back. <behind paw> People are so serious here</>
Will in New Haven
> In article
> <af961bea-09a8-43a3-85ea-4bb896928...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
And we don't have the same evidence about Mohhamed or Jesus. True
enough. But that doesn't mean that we have to accept their sincerity
on faith.
Gaeltach
"Nuclear Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:gvlpol$8vq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
:
: "Jim Lovejoy" <nos...@devnull.spam> wrote in message
Lighten up, Jim. That was funny! (I thought so at least)
Jonathan Schattke
Hey, how does that differ from you, nuclear wasted breath?
Will in New Haven
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 21:59:01 -0500, "Nuclear Waste"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"David" <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:eesr15hovv56tsng3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 27 May 2009 19:07:05 -0500, "Nuclear Waste"
>
> >>>"Gene" <g...@chewbacca.org> wrote in message
> >>>news:Xns9C176CE26B6Bge...@207.115.33.102...
> >>>> "Nuclear Waste" <myhan...@mchsi.com> rote in
There is a limit to that. I'm not saying consumating a marriage with a
nine-year old girl crosses that limit, in fact it probably doesn't,
but there is a limit.
David
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> typed furiously:
The limit, to me, is the onset of menses. "If she's old enough to
bleed, she's old enough to breed" was a common saying in my youth.
In the time of Queen Victoria if a girl was not married by the age of
twelve she was considered to be an "old maid" and often a girl would
be married, widowed and remarried before she was fourteen.
In equatorial countries the onset of menses is normally much earlier
than in cooler climates. Diet also has a bearing and the better the
diet the earlier puberty will occur.
When I was at school girls would rarely reach puberty before the age
of thirteen. Nowadays I often see girls under the age of eleven. still
in primary school, with secondary sex characteristics.
Will in New Haven
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
I'm not simply referring to that one issue. I maintain that there are
limits to cultural relativism.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> In the time of Queen Victoria if a girl was not married by the age of
> twelve she was considered to be an "old maid" and often a girl would
> be married, widowed and remarried before she was fourteen.
>
> In equatorial countries the onset of menses is normally much earlier
> than in cooler climates. Diet also has a bearing and the better the
> diet the earlier puberty will occur.
>
> When I was at school girls would rarely reach puberty before the age
> of thirteen. Nowadays I often see girls under the age of eleven. still
> in primary school, with secondary sex characteristics.
> --
> Regards
> David
> fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cheryl
> In the time of Queen Victoria if a girl was not married by the age of
> twelve she was considered to be an "old maid" and often a girl would
> be married, widowed and remarried before she was fourteen.
In Victorian England??? The mean age of first marriage for women was in
their 20s back then! You must be confusing it with the age of consent,
which was indeed 12, and which was raised in the 20th century to enable
men who seduced very young girls to be prosecuted for a crime.
Cheryl
Gene
dfb534...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> Your favorite biblical history theory sucks.
>
> Hmm. Exactly how does this "not my area of study" and "don't have a
> horse in this race" make me a "self-proclaimed expert"? What I do
> have a bit of training in, is historiography, with related
> epistemological fields. And I can recognize "no evidence" when I see
> it.
In other words, you cannot find a SINGLE reputable expert to cite in support
of the Jesus Myth theory, but are too intellectually dishonest to admit it.
Gutless. And people, wonder why I treat this business with contempt.
Matthew Malthouse
> In Victorian England??? The mean age of first marriage for women was in
> their 20s back then! You must be confusing it with the age of consent,
> which was indeed 12, and which was raised in the 20th century to enable
> men who seduced very young girls to be prosecuted for a crime.
Raised to 13 under the Offences Against the Person Act 1875 and
subsequently to 16 by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885 at which
age it since remained.
Matthew
--
Mail to this account goes to the bit bucket.
In the unlikely event you want to mail me replace usenet with my name