| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 04:43:33 AM |
| Object: |
Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The
New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser
Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he
compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation
which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution
still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists
have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first
glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most
technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous
stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so
much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/19.112.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
06 Apr 2005 12:01:59 AM |
|
|
John S. Wilkins wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
Well that is it. But is it based on a true story?
BTW, how do you know so much? An Aussie no less.
Mike Syvanen
Google is my mate, mate.
Well you google better than I do that is for sure. I was looking for
this story and couldn't find it.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Gosnell, FCD" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
06 Apr 2005 12:54:50 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1112761199.618481.133160
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Well you google better than I do that is for sure. I was looking for
this story and couldn't find it.
I found that one by entering 'freethinkers texas 1860'. It was one of
the first hits listed.
--
Regards,
Stan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
06 Apr 2005 01:49:25 AM |
|
|
Stan Gosnell, FCD wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1112761199.618481.133160
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Well you google better than I do that is for sure. I was looking for
this story and couldn't find it.
I found that one by entering 'freethinkers texas 1860'. It was one of
the first hits listed.
"Texas Freethinkers Massacre" for me
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
06 Apr 2005 11:21:11 PM |
|
|
John S. Wilkins wrote:
Stan Gosnell, FCD wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1112761199.618481.133160
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Well you google better than I do that is for sure. I was looking
for
this story and couldn't find it.
I found that one by entering 'freethinkers texas 1860'. It was one
of
the first hits listed.
"Texas Freethinkers Massacre" for me
John and Stan
Thanks for bailing me out. For awhile there I was beginning to believe
I had fantasized the whole story. My god, I can't believe it, my
memory is still intact. Maybe I still have a few years left.
Mike Syvanen
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
05 Apr 2005 12:33:04 AM |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2005 22:03:00 -0700, wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1112658190.562460.320840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There are a number of histories on the Spanish Civil War. The
fascists
used the term "atheist" to demonize their opponent and to mobilize
the
ignorant religious peasants. Their opponents were the elected
Republican government and its supporters were anarchists, Poumists,
communists, socialists and more central democratic forces.
About 1 million died in that conflict, many of them were executed
after
the war was over. So yes that is the estimate of of over 100,000.
Also there was second massacre of atheists that was carried out by
Christians. These were the original Freethinkers who established a
community in Texas. They also opposed slavery. In 1860
neighboring
militias wiped out the entire community.
I do see they founded Luckenbach, Tx. Seems to be a song in thre
somewhere.
http://www.godlesshouston.com/news/comfort_cenotaph_04.php
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1998/april98/scharf.html
Where is such information available?
I have been relying on memory. If there is real interest in these
stories I will find some original citations.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 06:18:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
As to how many died, I don't know, because there is no way that
I know of to determine how many of those who died were atheists,
I would ask, "Is there any evidence of any?"
During and just after the Spanish Civil War, the fascists and their
right wing catholic collaborators executed over 100,000 for being
"atheists", though it is not really known how many of them really
were.
I wonder. Do you have a source?
But, of course, this is neither here nor there on the question of why
people didn't pretend Jesus never existed before 1700.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 08:17:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
As to how many died, I don't know, because there is no way that
I know of to determine how many of those who died were atheists,
I would ask, "Is there any evidence of an y?"
During and just after the Spanish Civil War, the fascists and their
right wing catholic collaborators executed over 100,000 for being
"atheists", though it is not really known how many of them really
were.
RP:
I wonder. Do you have a source?
"The first element of the atheist creed appears to be 'demand everyone
else prove things to you. Pretend ignorance of the obvious. Do the
idiot-boy act.' So, you're doing that bit OK" --Roger Pearse
LOL!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 09:44:58 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 1 Apr 2005 02:49:38 -0800,
wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in news:1112260285.864871.299710
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the wars
of
religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words?
No.
That atheists have a creed is
....individual to each atheist.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 12:58:01 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2005 02:49:38 -0800,
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in news:1112260285.864871.299710
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the wars
of
religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words? That atheists have a creed is
apparent to all who encounter them; that they prefer not to discuss the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perhaps you could tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an atheist in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not doing his
part.
<snip>
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 05:08:41 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005 02:49:38 -0800,
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in news:1112260285.864871.299710
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the
wars
of
religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words? That atheists have a creed is
apparent to all who e ncounter them; that they prefer not to
discuss the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perhaps you could
tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
One of the "values" that RP lives by is that it is ok to
lie outrageously about atheists.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an atheist
in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not doing
his
part.
<snip>
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 01:43:57 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the
wars
of religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words? That atheists have a creed is
apparent to all who encounter them; that they prefer not to discuss
the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perhaps you could
tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an atheist
in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not doing
his
part.
The first element of the atheist creed appears to be 'demand everyone
else prove things to you. Pretend ignorance of the obvious. Do the
idiot-boy act.' So, you're doing that bit OK... <evil grin>
More seriously, everyone who has no other set of defined principles
tends to live by a subset of the societal values fashionable in his
time and culture. Every atheist does this, and so lives by an
irrational system. That's why no atheist can ever bring himself to
argue honestly for what he advances, since he hardly knows himself.
By back to the main point. The argument was that no-one questioned the
existence of Jesus before 1700 because anyone doing so would be
executed. So:
1. Were there no atheists before 1700?
2. Did none of them get executed?
3. Did they all keep quiet?
4. Or was the idea just a piece of malice anyway, only hoked up around
1700?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 06:35:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
AC wrote:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the
wars
of religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
RP:
Isn't this just playi ng with words? That atheists have a creed
is
apparent to all who encounter them; that they prefer not to
discuss the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perha ps you could
tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an
atheist in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not
doing his
part.
RP:
The first element of the atheist creed appears to be 'demand everyone
else prove things to you.
RP means like this:
----
RP:
Evidence?
----
RP:
I'm afraid I prefer evidence to authority.
---
RP:
But what evidence supports the thesis of connection? Specifically?
----
RP:
Either produce evidence or reason, or back off.
----
RP:
This again seems a remarkably dogmatic statement. While I agree
up to
a point, I think you should produce the evidence.
You are very big on demanding evidence, yet you never produce any to
support
your continuous negative comments and denials. So you lead the way.
RP:
Do you have a problem with being asked for evidence?
----
Etc., etc., etc. Of course when _you_ expect RP to back his claims:
Interesting theory. Can you list please the evidence you have in
mind...
You get abuse in return:
RP:
No-one owes the obtuse an education.
RP demands evidence all the time. He just doen't feel
he needs to supply any for his many extraordinary and
often ridiculous claims. If you don't accept them on his
say -so he attacks you, ad hominem style:
RP:
Pretend ignorance of the obvious. Do the
idiot-boy act.'
Just like he snivels about "abuse" while spewing it himself
by the metric ton.
RP:
More seriously, everyone who has no other set of defined pri nciples
tends to live by a subset of the societal values fashionable in his
time and culture.
One wonders why RP refuses to offer up his own set of
"principles" since he brings this mundane claim up constantly.
One wonders, that is,until one has read a few of his posts.
RP:
Every atheist does this, and so lives by an
irrational system.
There you have it: every atheist is irrational--cuz RP sez so.
That's why he subscribes to alt.atheism and has done so for years.
RP:
That's why no atheist can ever bring himself to
argue honestly
Ah. No atheist argues honestly. I see. Consider these jewels
of stupidity from RP, along with few other representative
examples of his anti-atheist hate rants:
"Most atheists are conformists to the value-idea system
of the age they live in, with a general drift to self-indulgence
in the vices."
"We both know that pity is not an atheist virtue"
"Nor do I notice any perceptible interest in reason among
atheists online, other than as a slogan."
"One problem with atheists is that many of them don't read what you
write. Instead they 'know' what you're saying, and answer what they
expect you to write. The result is that their world shrinks into a
childish caricature of whatever they learned as a child."
"Unlike most atheists, Ovid had culture. But he had the typical
problem of those who adopt atheism -- lack of integrity"
----
And then consider the definition of bigotry:
Bigotry
prejudice
These words refer to an unfair irrational or unexamined
attitude toward issues or people based on blanket
preconceptions.
Bigotry now refers almost exclusively to an intense
dislike or even violent hatred for a particular group,
race, or religion. The comparable use of prejudice
would indicate a similar but far less intense
predisposition against such a group. Bigotry almost
surely would be evidenced in unashamed public utterance
or behavior.
-- Hayakawa, S. I. (1978). Use The Right Word: Modern
guide to Synonyms and Related Words. New york:
Readers Digest Books.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 10:20:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
AC wrote:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the
wars
of religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words? That atheists have a creed is
apparent to all who encounter them; that they prefer not to discuss
the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perhaps you could
tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an atheist
in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not doing
his
part.
The first element of the atheist creed appears to be 'demand everyone
else prove things to you. Pretend ignorance of the obvious. Do the
idiot-boy act.' So, you're doing that bit OK... <evil grin>
Its hard to prove you christians are right when you are wrong about
everything. (Big fat grin).
I keep posting why youy are wrong and allyou can do is snip thefacts
and rave. (Another big fat grin). Obviously, even you know deep down
you have lost the 'debate'.
You god is palpable, provably non-existant and the rest of your
case collapses at that point. Atheism wins. I can show you so
many contradictions in the Jesus fables, that its is obvious it cannot
be true.
Things like the false prophecies of end of theworld and judgment day
that did not happen as prophecied are obvious to anybody who reads
the gospels carefully.
And the behavior of Christians has been bad for alomost 2000
years. You dare not answer me on my litany of support for genocide
and mass murder by America's good Christians under recent presidents.
You dare not debate the substance on any of this.
I have thrown all of this in your face repeatedly,
and you haven't a word of answer for any of it.
As we all have witnessesed.
I am the only one debating facst here, Roger.
Sad isn't it.
(Big, smug, self satisfied smirk).
More seriously, everyone who has no other set of defined principles
tends to live by a subset of the societal values fashionable in his
time and culture. Every atheist does this, and so lives by an
irrational system. That's why no atheist can ever bring himself to
argue honestly for what he advances, since he hardly knows himself.
At the turn of the 19th century, we saw the creation of social
science and sociology and criminology. A number of large sociological
studies of criminals was done and an odd fact was notcied. Atheists
were conspicous by their absence in prisons. This has held for over 100
years. Recent statistics from America's federal prison systems shows that
still, to date, Atheists are not criminals and do not end up in prison
often. They are far, far under-represented in prisons as compared
to their percent of populatio as a whole.
Whose societal values, Roger? Atheists have their own little
quiet values different from their Christia bretheren. We have
a century of studies to show Atheists are far more likely to be law
abiding citizens that Christians.
So stop your ignorant ad hominem attacks.
Since the mid 30's, James Leuba did a series of studies on
teh beliefs of scientists. They are overwhelmingly Atheists, and
the more prominent a scientists, the more likely they are to be
Atheists. Recent polls in the last few years show that this still
holds. Scientists are far more likey to be Atheists than average
Americans.
So, while you rant and rave most ignorantly, we see that over
a century here in America, we Atheists are heads and shoulders
above the average low cultured Americas we see filling prisons,
and battling science with christianity fueled anti-intellectualism.
I note recent studies by Barna, a christian research center, show
that Atheists are least likely to get divorced than any other segment
of the population.
We Atheists can be proud of Atheists values that have held steady
for well over a century since Sociology started keeping statistics.
Now, if we could only get you benighted christians to adopt the
excellent standards American Atheists have had for that time.
Atheists in America, have been far above the often low America/christian
culture with its ugly Jim Crow racism, anti-intellectualism, and
general low quality. America has always been a rather violent,
crime ridden country, despite also being a very religous country.
Just that it wasn't Atheists doing the crime.
By back to the main point. The argument was that no-one questiFujitsu
LifeBook P7010Doned the
existence of Jesus before 1700 because anyone doing so would be
executed. So:
1. Were there no atheists before 1700?
None that dared speak out for the most part.
There were some, but only because they had a tendency
to be at upper ends of society and could get away with it
from time to time.
Thomas Aikenhead was the last Englishman executed for Atheism
in England in 1697. You could stil afterwards, be imprisoned,
and many over the years were, for blasphemy, Atheism, and
encouraging others in same.
Robspierre and his deists started the terror by killing the Atheist
wing of the revolutionaries off.
Yes, there were Atheists. And it was dangerous.
2. Did none of them get executed?
Yes. Did you ever consider doing your homework?
3. Did they all keep quiet?
Some indeed did write. Notably Baron D'Holbach, Jean Messlier,
but anonymously. Do recall, paper making made it to France
and England fairly late, printing started only in the 1500's
and took awhile to be scaled down to make cheap books and pamphlets.
In France, since printing first became a trade usually run
by protestants, it fueled the reformation, and the religious wars
that killed 1/4 of Europe. This fueled Atheism, and the
start of Atheist writers, printers and sellers of these things,
who risked their lives to do it.
From Socrates to Aikenhead, Atheism was a capitol crime for
2100 years. Many did not write, for very obvious reasons.
If you could be burnt at the stake as was Giordano Bruno,
for blasphemy, you can imagine what the christians of that time
would do to a real live Atheist.
In the religous wars of the 1500's entire towns were wiped
out in the religous struggles between Catholic and Protestant.
Who was going to dare put a noose around their neck by being a
public Atheist in that mad era?
You may wish to read of the Spanish in the Netherlands and
see how they treated their fellow christians.
If you had bothered to read the history of Atheism
in any depth, and you have not, obviously, many Atheists
did indeed spend time in prison, even after England and France
stopped executing them.
4. Or was the idea just a piece of malice anyway, only hoked up around
1700?
Are you ever going to answer me on any of the evidence I slapped
down for you on why god and christianiuty are false?
Or why considering voting records of American Christian in the
last 30 years, we cannot consider christianity moral, what with
its penchant for supporting genocide and all?
The politicians that did that are still many of them, in office.
But, you don't have any answers for us, do you?
Doesn't that fact depress you at least a little bit?
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 01:57:20 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2005 11:43:57 -0800,
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
AC wrote:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the
wars
of religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words? That atheists have a creed is
apparent to all who encounter them; that they prefer not to discuss
the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perhaps you could
tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an atheist
in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not doing
his
part.
The first element of the atheist creed appears to be 'demand everyone
else prove things to you. Pretend ignorance of the obvious. Do the
idiot-boy act.' So, you're doing that bit OK... <evil grin>
Evil grin all you want, but I don't recall demanding anyone prove anything
to me. My worldview is as essentially unprovable as yours, so it would be a
ridiculous and somewhat hypocritical demand.
More seriously, everyone who has no other set of defined principles
tends to live by a subset of the societal values fashionable in his
time and culture. Every atheist does this, and so lives by an
irrational system. That's why no atheist can ever bring himself to
argue honestly for what he advances, since he hardly knows himself.
My values are, no doubt, deeply influenced by my society. However, being an
atheist, I can't justify them as "Such-and-such a deity told us so". I fail
to see how being able to say "My god told me this is how I'm supposed to
behave" is any more rational. Perhaps you could explain this to me.
<snip>
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 03:24:36 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005 11:43:57 -0800,
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
AC wrote:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the
wars
of religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words? That atheists have a creed
is
apparent to all who encounter them; that they prefer not to
discuss
the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perhaps you could
tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an
atheist
in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not
doing
his
part.
The first element of the atheist creed appears to be 'demand
everyone
else prove things to you. Pretend ignorance of the obvious. Do
the
idiot-boy act.' So, you're doing that bit OK... <evil grin>
Evil grin all you want, but I don't recall demanding anyone prove
anything
to me.
I am not so fortunate, however, as you will recall.
My worldview is as essentially unprovable as yours,
Is that the best we can offer for the way of life we live? That it is,
we hope, unprovable? I suggest that we should decide rationally on our
worldview, and certainly not adopt whatever happens to be floating
around and/or convenient; and, in case you think this a gibe, I suspect
that this is what we all do by default.
More seriously, everyone who has no other set of defined principles
tends to live by a subset of the societal values fashionable in his
time and culture. Every atheist does this, and so lives by an
irrational system. That's why no atheist can ever bring himself to
argue honestly for what he advances, since he hardly knows himself.
My values are, no doubt, deeply influenced by my society.
As indeed, are those of most people. But is this any way to acquire
any set of values or ideas? I don't see that it is. So, how
rationally do we acquire a better set. Indeed, have we clearly
identified that the menu of ideas of our age is a set of values, which
must be rationally identified? Because if we haven't, won't we always
drift into conformity with it?
However, being an atheist, I can't justify them as "Such-and-such a
deity
told us so". ...
I don't see any reason to introduce God into this question, tho.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
05 Apr 2005 05:05:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
AC wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005 11:43:57 -0800,
<> wrote:
AC wrote:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during
the
wars
of religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no
faith.
Isn't this just playing with words? That atheists have a
creed
is
apparent to all who encounter them; that they prefer not to
discuss
the
values they live by, but instead to snipe at others likewise.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry I missed the creed. Perhaps you
could
tell me
the creed I'm supposed to recognize.
I anxiously await this answer because I clearly want to be an
atheist
in
good standing, and not just some half-assed pseudo-atheist not
doing
his
part.
The first element of the atheist creed appears to be 'demand
everyone
else prove things to you. Pretend ignorance of the obvious. Do
the
idiot-boy act.' So, you're doing that bit OK... <evil grin>
Evil grin all you want, but I don't recall demanding anyone prove
anything
to me.
I am not so fortunate, however, as you will recall.
My worldview is as essentially unprovable as yours,
Is that the best we can offer for the way of life we live? That it
is,
we hope, unprovable? I suggest that we should decide rationally on
our
worldview, and certainly not adopt whatever happens to be floating
around and/or convenient; and, in case you think this a gibe, I
suspect
that this is what we all do by default.
More seriously, everyone who has no other set of defined
principles
tends to live by a subset of the societal values fashionable in
his
time and culture. Every atheist does this, and so lives by an
irrational system. That's why no atheist can ever bring himself
to
argue honestly for what he advances, since he hardly knows
himself.
My values are, no doubt, deeply influenced by my society.
As indeed, are those of most people. But is this any way to acquire
any set of values or ideas? I don't see that it is. So, how
rationally do we acquire a better set. Indeed, have we clearly
identified that the menu of ideas of our age is a set of values,
which
must be rationally identified? Because if we haven't, won't we
always
drift into conformity with it?
And how are Christians any different in this regard? They change their
morality to fit with the times continually.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 07:12:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
AC wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005 11:43:57 -0800,
<> wrote:
AC wrote:
[...]
My values are, no doubt, deeply influenced by my society.
As indeed, are those of most people. But is this any way to acquire
any set of values or ideas? I don't see that it is. So, how
rationally do we acquire a better set. Indeed, have we clearly
identified that the menu of ideas of our age is a set of values,
which
must be rationally identified? Because if we haven't, won't we
always
drift into conformity with it?
However, being an atheist, I can't justify them as "Such-and-such a
deity
told us so". ...
I don't see any reason to introduce God into this question, tho.
Hahahahahahahahaha! What did I tell you? RP deletes:
"I fail to see how being able to say 'My god told me this
is how I'm supposed to behave' is any more rational.
Perhaps you could explain this to me."
Because obviously he can't explain it and he is embarrassed
by it .
RP sez "I don't see any reason to introduce God into this
question, tho" as if it was you who was off topic instead
of him. (Note the subject header) I am starting to suspect
that RP is a deeply misguided stealth atheist doing his level
best to make Christians appear to be dishonest and malicious
assholes. I can't imagine a real Christian having such contempt
for the words of Jesus:
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
-- Matthew 5:16 ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 06:45:30 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005 11:43:57 -0800,
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
More seriously, everyone who has no other set of defined principles
tends to live by a subset of the societal values fashionable in his
time and culture. Every atheist does this, and so lives by an
irrational system. That's why no atheist can ever bring himself to
argue honestly for what he advances, since he hardly knows himself.
My values are, no doubt, deeply influenced by my society. However,
being an
atheist, I can't justify them as "Such-and-such a deity told us so".
I fail
to see how being able to say "My god told me this is how I'm supposed
to
behave" is any more rational. Perhaps you could explain this to me.
Good luck trying to get an honest answer from the evasive plebe: RP.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 05:20:45 AM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2005 02:49:38 -0800, wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in news:1112260285.864871.299710
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the wars
of
religion?
Well, obviously, none, because they by definition had no faith.
Isn't this just playing with words?
No.
That atheists have a creed is
apparent to all who encounter them;
Why don't you tell us atheists, what our "creed", is, and see how many do not
subscribe to it?
that they prefer not to discuss the
values they live by,
Why ever would we want to do that?
We are not out to gain converts, or show our superiority, if indeed we are
superior.
Besides, you xtians have pretty well cornered the market, when it comes to
bragging about how good you are, to the point where any value we propose, you
will tell us that it is a xtian value.
Not, *also* a xtian value, but "a xtian value", inferring that our morality is
stolen from you.
That those values have existed for as long as man has lived in social groups,
and had the means of recording his thoughts, be it as oral tradition, written
text, or electronic pulses, and that your "xtian values", are just an echo of
them, does not seem to bother you.
but instead to snipe at others likewise.
You must have noticed that you are posting to atheists, in an atheist NGs.
Now if you come in here and criticise us, preach at us, insult us, lie about
us, tell us what we think, or in any other way, behave like the average usenet
xtian arse wipe, you must expect these little upsets.
As to how many died, I don't know, because there is no way that
I know of to determine how many of those who died were atheists,
I would ask, "Is there any evidence of any?"
Probably not; But then, there is no evidence that any of the witches they
murdered, were witches.
and how many were devout Christians who were just 'collateral
damage'. Many tens of thousands of persons were tortured and
killed for religious reasons, that's clear,
Indeed. Almost all of them Christians.
Or Jews.
Or atheists.
Or any minority group that did not have enough political punch.
The inquisitions were against heretics. That would include anybody who was
*not* a xtian. Xtian attitudes have not changed all that much since then.
You still insist that your's is the only god, and you still attack non xtians,
at the least provocation; Or, if you are GW Bush, or Tony Blair, without any
provocation at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 12:54:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in news:1112206893.458870.193020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary was
only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it
all.
Prior to that, anyone who doubted publicly would have been burned
at
the
stake.
Evidence?
Stan, you might easily misunderstand this. You might
easily say: "Roger makes assertions all the time that he
NEVER offers evidence for. Like "Not really, except
among cranks." What a laughable hypocrite he is to
demand it of me." But you'd be wrong. Yes, RP has
double standards and yes he always applies the higher
standard to atheists and reserves the lower standard for
himself.
But you see, this is necessary. It is debate affirmative
action. Roger wouldn't stand a chance here with a level
playing field. He simply isn't competent. Rodger
knows this. That is why he assumes he is exempt
from the same standards he holds you to.
How many atheists died for their faith during the wars of
religion?
How many believers committed murder for their faith?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 01:03:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in news:1112206893.458870.193020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary was
only invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort
of says it all.
Prior to that, anyone who doubted publicly would have been
burned at the stake.
Evidence?
[abuse snipped]
None, in other words.
How many atheists died for their faith during the wars of
religion?
[more abuse]
None here either, it seems.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 12:07:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in news:1112206893.458870.193020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary
was
only invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort
of says it all.
Prior to that, anyone who doubted publicly would have been
burned at the stake.
Evidence?
Stan, you might easily misunderstand this. You might
easily say: "Roger makes assertions all the time that he
NEVER offers evidence for. Like "Not really, except
among cranks." What a laughable hypocrite he is to
demand it of me." But you'd be wrong. Yes, RP has
double standards and yes he always applies the higher
standard to atheists and reserves the lower standard for
himself.
But you see, this is necessary. It is debate affirmative
action. Roger wouldn't stand a chance here with a level
playing field. He simply isn't competent. Rodger
knows this. That is why he assumes he is exempt
from the same standards he holds you to.
You don't wish to acknowledge your self bestowed
double standards? Don't you have _any_ scruples left?
None, in other words.
Oh, I see.
[abuse]
How many believers committed murder for their faith?
No response?
None here either, it seems.
It is nothing for you to be proud of.
-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 12:07:57 AM |
|
|
wrote:
jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in news:1112206893.458870.193020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary
was
only invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort
of says it all.
Prior to that, anyone who doubted publicly would have been
burned at the stake.
Evidence?
Stan, you might easily misunderstand this. You might
easily say: "Roger makes assertions all the time that he
NEVER offers evidence for. Like "Not really, except
among cranks." What a laughable hypocrite he is to
demand it of me." But you'd be wrong. Yes, RP has
double standards and yes he always applies the higher
standard to atheists and reserves the lower standard for
himself.
But you see, this is necessary. It is debate affirmative
action. Roger wouldn't stand a chance here with a level
playing field. He simply isn't competent. Rodger
knows this. That is why he assumes he is exempt
from the same standards he holds you to.
You don't wish to acknowledge your self bestowed
double standards? Don't you have _any_ scruples left?
None, in other words.
Oh, I see.
[abuse]
How many believers committed murder for their faith?
No response?
None here either, it seems.
It is nothing for you to be proud of.
-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 12:09:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
wrote:
Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in news:1112206893.458870.193020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary
was
only invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort
of says it all.
Prior to that, anyone who doubted publicly would have been
burned at the stake.
Evidence?
Stan, you might easily misunderstand this. You might
easily say: "Roger makes assertions all the time that he
NEVER offers evidence for. Like "Not really, except
among cranks." What a laughable hypocrite he is to
demand it of me." But you'd be wrong. Yes, RP has
double standards and yes he always applies the higher
standard to atheists and reserves the lower standard for
himself.
But you see, this is necessary. It is debate affirmative
action. Roger wouldn't stand a chance here with a level
playing field. He simply isn't competent. Rodger
knows this. That is why he assumes he is exempt
from the same standards he holds you to.
You don't wish to acknowledge your self bestowed
double standards? Don't you have _any_ scruples left?
None, in other words.
Oh, I see.
[abuse]
How many believers committed murder for their faith?
No response?
None here either, it seems.
It is nothing for you to be proud of.
-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 03:13:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
davidm wrote:
One of the Roman historians (Tacitus I think) mentions Jesus and
Christians, but (slightly embarassingly) Josephus, who wrote a
history of the Jews, does not mention him at all.
Well actually he does, in Antiquities, but it is
probably a forgery that did not appear until the
4th Century.
There are two references, the second of which has never been
seriously
disputed. The first was generally considered an interpolation a
century ago; modern scholars do not consider that this is so,
however.
For a study of the historiography of the passage, see Dr. Alice
Whealey's book, "Josephus and Jesus" (on Amazon).
Saul/Paul (who, of course did not know Jesus but lived and
wrote soon after Jesus's death) and is the earliest of the
biblical writers is better attested to. Paul does write
about communities all over the Roman empire, and his descriptions
match archeological data.
Doesn't have much impact on the issue of Jesus actually
existing or not however.
Since we know what Christians believe about Jesus, their presence at
an
early date is testimony to the antiquity of their information, tho.
It is testimony to the antiquity of their beliefs, but not to the
reliability of their information.
The sudden appearance of the Christian cult is strong circumstantial
evidence for the existence of a founder. But that role can arguably be
assigned to Paul of Tarsus. He used the recent existance of a
prophet/teacher to establish his own legitimacy. Nearly everything we
"know" of Jesus came thriugh the filter of a man whose own status
depended on that of the Rabbi Jesus.
There are plenty of Romans writing about Christians
later in the Empire (Pliny the Younger writes to Emperor Trajan
about
whether people should be prosecuted for being Christian on the
basis
of an [anonymous?] denounciation and Trajan replies `that is not
the way we do things now' (contrasting with how things were done
by the later Flavian emperors like Domition).
I think there is no question Jesus existed
Regardless, there is a question.
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary was only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it all.
Says what? That it wasn't safe to ask this until about 1700?
and the broad events of his life (birth, became an itinerant
preacher/teacher/healer, persecuted by the Romans at the
behest of the Jewish establishment, was cricified)
are as as well established as any ancient history
I don't think so. There are no known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus.
Clearly there are. But the demand for 'contemporary' accounts is one
only made by atheists about Jesus; I have yet to see it made for any
other ancient figure.
Other ancient figures usually do not have divine status assigned to
them. If I told you my grandfather was ethnic German and worked in a
beer factory, you'd probably believe me. Why? Because they are
perfectly ordinary claims. Suppose I told you he was a Martian king,
and I was to inherit the throne and be overlord of the solar system
when he died? You'd likely scoff, and demand strong evidence - if you
went to even that trouble.
Your claims for Jesus of Nazareth (if you're a Christian) are
extraordinary. I assume from your post that your'e educated and
reasonably intelligent; therefore I am assuming that you are being
deliberately disingenuous here.
If you simply asserted that he was a philospher-teacher from the first
century BCE, I'd have no trouble with that. But claims that he raised
the dead are claims of powerful juju, and I want more than second hand,
decades-old rumors.
And virtually everything "known" about Jesus comes from the Bible.
Ad hominem argument, tho.
What do you claim to know about him that doesn't come from your bible?
(but why better than Julius Ceasar I have no idea).
That can't be right. Better than some 3rd century emperors, if we
exclude archaeological evidence.
Why exclude that? But true, if you are simply talking about his
existence.
That Jesus was a hearler seems incontrovertible.
How come?
The testimony of the sources. How else?
Whether the birth was a `virgin birth', whether he actually died
on
the cross and later returned alive (rather than seeming to die
but
in fact went into a coma, was later revived but soon after died
of his wounds -- as the Passover Plot, e.g. suggests), whether
the miracles listed in the New testament happened as described,
these do not seem to be questions that archeology can answer.
They are not questions that history can answer, period.
Why? If I kick someone in the teeth, that can be shown to have
occurred by the methods of history. If I raise them from the dead,
why
does this suddenly become impossible to show? It's nonsense, I
think.
I have been kicked in the teeth. I have never seen anyone "raised from
the dead", unless you mean CPR.
Do you believe that the Egyptian pharoahs were gods?
As Hume points out, historical data can only be interpreted
if we assume the same natural laws apply throughout time.
Pure category confusion, it seems to me.
Are you making a special case - the laws of nature were different when
we interpret your favorite bedtime stories? If we assume the world
worked the same way 2000 years ago, then I would want as much
supporting data to believe these tales as I would any bizarre claim of
magic. I don't believe Uri Gellar has powers, and I find ancient
word-of-mouth stories from people untrained in skeptical methods to be
equally unconvincing.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 07:44:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Since we know what Christians believe about Jesus, their presence
at an early date is testimony to the antiquity of their
information, tho.
It is testimony to the antiquity of their beliefs, but not to the
reliability of their information.
This objection could be made of any ancient testimony on any subject
whatsoever, and so, in my view, must be rejected as obscurantist (no
personal offence intended, of course -- I'm talking about the method).
The sudden appearance of the Christian cult is strong circumstantial
evidence for the existence of a founder. But that role can arguably
be
assigned to Paul of Tarsus.
Not from the ancient evidence.
I think there is no question Jesus existed
Regardless, there is a question.
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary was
only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it
all.
Says what? That it wasn't safe to ask this until about 1700?
Why? How unsafe did Diocletian feel when he was burning Christians?
and the broad events of his life (birth, became an itinerant
preacher/teacher/healer, persecuted by the Romans at the
behest of the Jewish establishment, was cricified)
are as as well established as any ancient history
I don't think so. There are no known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus.
Clearly there are. But the demand for 'contemporary' accounts is
one
only made by atheists about Jesus; I have yet to see it made for
any
other ancient figure.
Other ancient figures usually do not have divine status assigned to
them.
Not the point, tho. If we demand different standards of evidence, we
exercise prejudice.
Your claims for Jesus of Nazareth (if you're a Christian) are
extraordinary.
Not half so extraordinary as yours, really!
I assume from your post that your'e educated and
reasonably intelligent; therefore I am assuming that you are being
deliberately disingenuous here.
Ah... atheists. One day I must write an article on this form of
belief, with statistics -- gathered online -- as to the deleterious
effects of it on all those who practise it.
And virtually everything "known" about Jesus comes from the
Bible.
Ad hominem argument, tho.
What do you claim to know about him that doesn't come from your
bible?
Not an answer to the point, tho.
(but why better than Julius Ceasar I have no idea).
That can't be right. Better than some 3rd century emperors, if we
exclude archaeological evidence.
Why exclude that?
Because Jesus wasn't an emperor and didn't issue coins, so including
that involves chalk and cheese.
They are not questions that history can answer, period.
Why? If I kick someone in the teeth, that can be shown to have
occurred by the methods of history. If I raise them from the dead,
why does this suddenly become impossible to show? It's nonsense,
I think.
I have been kicked in the teeth. I have never seen anyone "raised
from
the dead", unless you mean CPR.
But, on the logic given, if you did see it you could not recognise it.
Such artificial blindness to eyewitness events is unscientific, surely?
As Hume points out, historical data can only be interpreted
if we assume the same natural laws apply throughout time.
Pure category confusion, it seems to me.
Are you making a special case - the laws of nature were different
when
we interpret your favorite bedtime stories? If we assume the world
worked the same way 2000 years ago, then I would want as much
supporting data to believe these tales as I would any bizarre claim
of
magic. I don't believe Uri Gellar has powers, and I find ancient
word-of-mouth stories from people untrained in skeptical methods to
be
equally unconvincing.
I do not see any practical difference between this and being prejudiced
against things we don't want to believe. I think we should be more
open-minded than this.
The existence of fakes is neither here nor there; unless, of course, we
are to return our credit cards and dollar bills, on the grounds that
fakes exist!
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 01:38:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
wrote:
[...]
I don't think so. There are no known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus.
Clearly there are. But the demand for 'contemporary' accounts is
one
only made by atheists about Jesus; I have yet to see it made for
any
other ancient figure.
Othe r ancient figures usually do not have divine status assigned
to
them.
Not the point, tho. If we demand different standards of evidence, we
exercise prejudice.
Note that RP fabricated this "demand" all by himself. He
was pissed that I pointed out the fact that there are no
known contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, so he twisted
my statement into being a "demand." What else could he
complain about? He is not about to stand behind his
gainsaying ("Clearly there are" --contemporaneous accounts
of Jesus) despite his lauyghably hypocritical condemnation
of "different standards." But it is really stupid if you think
about it as RP clearly did not. How could I "demand" such
evidence? What is supposed to happen if this "demand" isn't
met? The claim is idiotic. But any port in a storm is RP's
credo.
Your claims for Jesus of Nazareth (if you're a Christian) are
extraordina ry.
Not half so extraordinary as yours, really!
Ah, so RP rationalizes his extraordinary claims by pointing
to some unnamed extraordinary claims by his correspondent. So
if athests do it then it is ok for RP to do it.
What does this say about RP's oft alleged assertion that
atheists embrace societies values whereas RP doesn't?
Here we have an example where RP' standard is based
on what RP would call atheist standards. How amusing.
I assume from your post that your'e educated and
reasonably intelligent; therefore I am assuming that you are being
deliberately disingenuous here.
Ah... atheists. One day I must wr ite an article on this form of
belief, with statistics -- gathered online -- as to the deleterious
effects of it on all those who practise it.
Abusive ad hominem noted -- not to mention expected
and predicted from the certified anti-atheist bigot, RP.
And virtually everything "known" about Jesus comes from the
Bible.
Ad hominem argum ent, tho.
What do you claim to know about him that doesn't come from your
bible?
Not an answer to the point, tho.
The point was that virtually everything "known" about
Jesus comes from the Bible and his statement was on
right on point.
(but why better than Julius Ceasar I have no idea).
That can't be right. Better than some 3rd century emperors, if
we
exclude archaeological evidence.
Why exclude that?
Because Jesus wasn't an emperor and didn't issue coins, so including
that involves chalk and cheese.
LOL! Then we have to throw out accounts of Christians
because Ceasar didn't have any Julians who erected a
religion around him.
They are not questions that history can answer, period.
Why? If I kick someone in the teeth, that can be shown to have
occurred by the methods of history. If I raise them from the
dead,
why does this suddenly become impossible to show? It's nonsense,
I think.
I have b een kicked in the teeth. I have never seen anyone "raised
from
the dead", unless you mean CPR.
But, on the logic given, if you did see it you could not recognise
it.
If RP finds nothing to criticize he simply adds context to
what you say as he does here.
Such artificial blindness to eyewitness events is unscientific,
surely?
Oh my goodness! What eyewitness events? An actual eye
witness event would be something closer to the entire
Roman senate witnessing and attesting to something. Like
Augustus bodily ascending into heaven. Ask RP what his
position on that is. But don't expect a straight answer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg G." |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 04:40:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
I don't think so. There are no known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus.
Clearly there are. But the demand for 'contemporary' accounts is
one
only made by atheists about Jesus; I have yet to see it made for
any
other ancient figure.
Other ancient figures usually do not have divine status assigned to
them. If I told you my grandfather was ethnic German and worked in a
beer factory, you'd probably believe me. Why? Because they are
perfectly ordinary claims. Suppose I told you he was a Martian king,
and I was to inherit the throne and be overlord of the solar system
when he died? You'd likely scoff, and demand strong evidence - if you
went to even that trouble.
Your claims for Jesus of Nazareth (if you're a Christian) are
extraordinary. I assume from your post that your'e educated and
reasonably intelligent; therefore I am assuming that you are being
deliberately disingenuous here.
If you simply asserted that he was a philospher-teacher from the
first
century BCE, I'd have no trouble with that. But claims that he raised
the dead are claims of powerful juju, and I want more than second
hand,
decades-old rumors.
Not to mention that many parts of the Jesus legend are from older
myths, which indicates that the biographies are compilations of myths.
The stories of Jesus are as contemporary with Jesus as the 1940's
western movies are depictions of the late 1800's cowboys.
--
Greg G.
Don't you hate it when your bubble gum falls out when you trip?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lt. Kizhe Catson" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 03:33:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[largish snip]
Clearly there are. But the demand for 'contemporary' accounts is one
only made by atheists about Jesus; I have yet to see it made for any
other ancient figure.
Other ancient figures usually do not have divine status assigned to
them. If I told you my grandfather was ethnic German and worked in a
beer factory, you'd probably believe me. Why? Because they are
perfectly ordinary claims. Suppose I told you he was a Martian king,
and I was to inherit the throne and be overlord of the solar system
when he died? You'd likely scoff, and demand strong evidence - if you
went to even that trouble.
Your claims for Jesus of Nazareth (if you're a Christian) are
extraordinary. I assume from your post that your'e educated and
reasonably intelligent; therefore I am assuming that you are being
deliberately disingenuous here.
If you simply asserted that he was a philospher-teacher from the first
century BCE, I'd have no trouble with that. But claims that he raised
the dead are claims of powerful juju, and I want more than second hand,
decades-old rumors.
Not to get into the middle of this fight, but some skeptics (as I read
them) claim exactly that: there was never an historical figure called
Jesus at the centre of what became the Christian religion. Personally,
I regard this as a sort of of hyper-skepticism. I think that the
Gospels (and other early Christian writings) are largely legendary, but
it seems more likely to me that those legends accreted onto the
traditions associated with a once-living person, rather than inventing
the person out of whole cloth to attach themselves to. Granted, it may
be difficult or impossible to recover the Jesus of history from beneath
the Christ of faith.
Disclaimer: I'm not a historian. But then, neither are 90% of the
people who shoot their mouths off on this subject on Usenet, on either
side of the question. So I've got plenty of company.
-- Kizhe
[rest snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 07:47:20 AM |
|
|
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
Not to get into the middle of this fight, but some skeptics (as I
read
them) claim exactly that: there was never an historical figure called
Jesus at the centre of what became the Christian religion.
Personally,
I regard this as a sort of of hyper-skepticism. I think that the
Gospels (and other early Christian writings) are largely legendary,
but
it seems more likely to me that those legends accreted onto the
traditions associated with a once-living person, rather than
inventing
the person out of whole cloth to attach themselves to. Granted, it
may
be difficult or impossible to recover the Jesus of history from
beneath
the Christ of faith.
Seems reasonable to me.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
