| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2005 06:24:53 PM |
| Object: |
Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
Jesus Denial
I created this blog 11 months ago without writing anything in it until
now. Yesterday I heard from some friends about Larry King's recent
show, "What Happens After We Die?" Larry had invited an evangelical
Protestant, a priest, a Muslim scholar, and a rabbi. He also had
included Marianne Williamson, a wonderful lecturer and teacher of the
Course in Miracles -- a modern spiritual teaching in which Jesus Christ
appears as the central figure, though the teaching relies less on
figures and more on a path of enlightenment similar to that found in
Buddhism. Rounding out his panel was Ellen Johnson, president of
American Atheists, an organization based here in New York. Ellen
apparently argued on the show that Jesus Christ never existed.
So I went to the web yesterday and found a site called
www.jesusneverexisted.com. Its subheading: "Uncompromising exposure of
the counterfeit origins of Christianity and of the evil it has brought
to the world." The site was created by one Kenneth Humphreys in the
autumn of 2002, a few months after I finished a debate with a co-worker
and friend, Ryan, about the existence of God -- a debate in which he
argued that Jesus did not exist, and introduced me to that idea. I
wrote him at least 60 pages in all. Very few subjects have inspired me
more than this one. In fact I wrote Kenneth Humphreys a letter
confronting him with his site's egregious misquotation of the Church
Father Justin Martyr, who is made to say words implying that Jesus'
existence was in doubt in the ancient world. That website is one of the
more bigoted I've ever seen. It means to prove with a vengeance the
concluding statement on its home page: "Christianity is the worst
disaster in history," meaning the most murderous.
For a while I've suspected that this fringe idea about Jesus was, like
Holocaust denial, becoming more popular. When I gave my friend Kate a
copy of the debate I had with Ryan, she said to me that I'd given the
theory of nonexistence too much credit, that is, more attention than it
deserved. She was suggesting something very reasonable, that such ideas
die by themselves if left alone. But the theory kept turning up in all
the wrong places. In May 2004 the Skeptical Inquirer put out a critique
of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" in which Joe Nickell, a
onetime professor of technical writing and stage magician, seemed to be
arguing that Jesus was a figment of imagination; so I wrote to the
magazine just to say that as professional and professed skeptics they
were buying into a conspiracy theory. In his book, The Disinformation
Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths,
Russ Kick affirms the theory as expounded by one of its chief
proponents, who goes by the Indian-sounding moniker Acharya S. (Kick
uses another Christ-myther and former evangelical, Dan Barker -- the
author my friend Ryan used in our debate -- to attack the Resurrection
in his book, Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media
Mirages and Establishment Lies). There are signs that the whitewashing
of Jesus is firmly esconced, in our Republican-dominant times, on the
left, and may be rising in popularity now as part of a passing
arrangement of politics; but I'm not sure.
I've called the movement Jesus-denial, not in the sense that it denies
that Jesus was divine, or indeed that he had any particular attribute
at all, but simply that he breathed and lived. I have found startling
similarities between this denial and that of the Holocaust, though I
consider Holocaust denial more truly bigoted, more prevalent even in
those places where it was thought to be dying, and less rational.
I found another website called Positive Atheism, promoting the theory
that Jesus did not exist. I read the transcript of Larry King's show at
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html, and went to the
American Atheists website, where Ellen Johnson, as president,
introduces the entire worldview -- not entirely in an unappealing
manner. This site was, in that sense, different from the others. I went
to the section on Christianity and found essays by Frank Zindler, a
former professor of biology and geology who claims that Jesus did not
exist. And I began composing a long letter to Ellen, in which I
referred to my few years as an atheist and described at length what was
wrong with the theory that she had promoted on Larry King and was
promoting on her site.
I looked up the phrase "Jesus never existed" on Google. There were
3,770 hits. The first was Kenneth Humphreys' site of that name. A good
number came from ordinary postings on discussion boards. Many of the
rest came from mainstream sites about history or religious history in
which the article entitled "Jesus" would include in its bibliography,
as one of a full variety of viewpoints, the Humphreys site. None of
these latter bibliographies quoted his theory approvingly, but the very
fact that his site was now commonly listed as part of the
bibliographical literature thought to be worth listing struck me. It
meant to me that the theory of non-existence had found a certain level
of respectability. It is no longer fringe. Larry King's show is
certainly a marker of mainstream culture, so Ellen Johnson's on-air
argument against the existence of Jesus represents, to me, a kind of
marker in this movement.
I Googled phrases for other world religions. "Buddha never existed"
turned up 75 hits. None or very few of them, as far as I could tell,
were open arguments to that effect; mostly I seemed to be turning up
casual references to the idea that Buddha never existed, without
affirmations of that idea. In fact the first hit was by a Christian who
wondered if people of other faiths also had to put up with their
religious figures being argued out of existence. It was a page about
Jesus' existence.
"Muhammad never existed" turned up only 36 hits. The first came from a
1996 Daniel Pipes essay at the website of American Atheist, a different
site from Ellen Johnson's organization. I have only read a few brief
pieces by Pipes, but I gather that he is a right-wing author with an
axe to grind against Islam, and that many of his writings support the
idea that Islam is an inherently violent religion. This particular
piece was a review of Why I Am Not A Muslim, a book by an ex-Muslim
named Ibn Warraq. Here is an excerpt from the review:
"Ibn Warraq draws on current Western scholarship to make the
astonishing claim that Muhammad never existed, or if he did, he had
nothing to do with the Koran. Rather, that holy book was fabricated a
century or two later in Palestine, then 'projected back onto an
invented Arabian point of origin.' If the Koran is a fraud, it's not
surprising to learn that the author finds little authentic in other
parts of the Islamic tradition. For example, he dispatches Islamic law
as 'a fantastic creation founded on forgeries and pious fictions.' The
whole of Islam, in short, he portrays as a concoction of lies."
I quote all this at length because the arguments are astonishingly
close to what is said about Christianity when Jesus' existence is
denied.
Some of the other sites quote the Pipes article, as well as a different
and more recent article in which Pipes tells of a retired CIA agent who
relates that the CIA spread the following misinformation around the
Middle East in the 1950s: that the Soviet Union was promoting
scholarship along the lines that Muhammad never existed. As for the
other hits, I could find none that explicitly argued against Muhammad's
existence.
This is important to me because one thing I discovered in debating Ryan
was the degree to which no religion was safe if even one was attacked.
I found the Jesus-as-myth theory, in other words, to build its entire
foundation on the premise that religion is made up of myths, forgeries,
lies, coercions, and no other history worth speaking about. I found
that those who tried to "vaporize" Jesus out of existence also were
saying extremely negative things about other religions, without
consulting the scholars of those religions: and I don't mean Islam
here, I mean the pagan Roman cults that Christianity eclipsed. So I
didn't see Islam or Buddhism attacked per se in these writings; but I
felt that they would be next, so to speak, if Christianity were allowed
to "fall."
And I found that phenomena which had their own discrete meanings in the
non-Christian religions were being distorted and forced into Christian
categories. What I mean is that when someone says that Jesus did not
exist, and that Christ was a pastiche of pagan cults or goddess
religions, which had their own virgin births and resurrections, I found
that all this evidence came from the 19th century, when the West knew
very little indeed about religions other than Christianity.
Archaelogists and ethnographers were Christian in background, so
everything they discovered in the historical record, they interpreted
as a parallel to Christianity. It's as if you're a Christian and you
visit a Native American ceremony, and everything you see you try to
relate to what you know: "This is their version of Mass; this is their
communion; this is their bishop; etc." And no doubt, the world's
religions do have many common elements with different names. But these
elements also often have different and autonomous meanings, not so easy
to discover even after decades of work. Certainly the old European
attitude about it, where religions would be studied like mice under a
microscope, could not penetrate the heart. Many mistakes were made.
People discovered texts or artifacts and said, "That looks to me like a
Last Supper outside of Christianity," or "this must have been a virgin
birth." From there it was a short jump to conclude that Christianity
was nothing original.
But the terrible conclusion, of course, is that those other religions
were not original either. Worse, they were now no more than precursors
to Christianity. One of the greatest mistakes of traditional
Christianity has been to treat the Jewish scriptures as if they were no
more than a precursor to the New Testament; yet here was the same
mistake being made by secular scholars. Every religion, when you argue
such things as the non-existence of Jesus, is made into a pale copy of
Christianity; and Christianity is made into an unoriginal, destructive
bandit. This is no way to affirm religion or to respect people's
beliefs. And I wonder how many people today, when they easily accept
various forms of the theories that Christianity was preceded by many
virgin births or resurrections, really contemplate what they are doing,
and ask themselves whether they are really making that difficult entry
into other worlds and other ways of thinking, or just working out their
own issues concerning the faith of their childhoods.
In my research it was common for me to find statements to the effect
that Krishna was crucified, or that Buddha came to earth to redeem
humanity. All my years practicing yoga and studying Hinduism and
Buddhism paid off here, because I knew these Eastern traditions were
being perverted. How many Indians died resisting British culture,
including Christianity, only to have someone in ignorance state that
the cross was a common feature of Hinduism? How many times do Buddhist
teachers have to tell us that Buddha did not come to redeem humanity
but simply taught us about suffering and ways to overcome it, before we
know enough to call ignorant claims what they truly are?
If it comes to pass that Muhammad is attacked, I want to be there to
help my Muslim brothers and sisters. I have made two Muslim friends in
the past few months, and have visited and prayed at a mosque; I intend
to visit again. I find myself learning from them, though I'm not pulled
away from my own faith. Right now, I do not see that Muhammad or Buddha
(a somewhat more meaningful figure to my beloved wife, Dess) are being
attacked. There is no reason, objectively speaking, why they cannot be
in the future. The evidence for those figures is roughly the same as it
is for Jesus: religious scriptures copied some years after the central
figure's death are the earliest witnesses, along with testimonies by
enemies or co-religionists, followed in due course by witnesses from
"secular" historians not belonging to the religion and its environment;
none of the great figures left behind, as did the Pharoahs or similar
leaders, physical evidence. If Jesus alone is being attacked by secular
forces (not, it should be noted, by other religions), it is probably
because Christianity has had the most contact with such forces.
Here I wish to give a simple summary of why the theory that Jesus did
not exist is both false and pernicious. I have 10 basic reasons.
1) It is a conspiracy theory. It says that a grand fiction has been
hoisted on the world by secretive and powerful Christian organizations.
It argues that all evidence pointing to invention has been suppressed,
and that all evidence pointing to Christ's existence is fabrication --
all of it, from the New Testament to Jewish writings to Greco-Roman
annals. It takes all the evidence from Christian, Jewish, and pagan
writers and dismisses it by arguing that it all amounts to invention by
reactionary power. In that it is not too different from Marxism, which
regarded religion as a reactionary, counter-revolutionary opiate. But
the theory is not Marxist in origin. It is, quite simply, a conspiracy
theory tailored for Western audiences skeptical of religion. If you
take nothing else away from this post, remember this: the theory of
non-existence, like any conspiracy theory, relies on evidence that is
not there (because it is purportedly suppressed), and denies all the
evidence that is there (because it is purportedly fabricated).
2) It leaves all religions open to attacks from those who, like one
Christ-mythologist, regard religion as "mental illness." Many of these
people are harmless on the surface, but Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong
believed the same thing about religion, and destroyed both shrines and
lives by the tens of millions.
3) It represents a monumental step backward in our understanding of
other religions and the relationships Christianity has had with them.
Calling Jesus a myth requires saying where the ideas for the myth came
from. Sometimes it is said that the ideas for such a Savior figure came
from the Old Testament and from Judaism, but since this makes the
historical break between Christianity and Judaism impossible to
explain, the more usual course is to say that Christ came out of pagan
myths -- so the Roman cults, and sometimes Buddhism and Hinduism, are
named as primary influences upon Christianity. These religions are
romanticized, or they are made to seem like Christianity, which is a
mistake in itself, but is particularly pernicious because the type of
Christian religion referred to here is one that is totally destructive
and immoral. Those who say that the cross had antecedents in other
religions, and in the next paragraph denounce Christianity for being a
bloody religion focused from the start on an instrument of torture, do
not realize that they are essentially saying the same thing about the
pre-Christian religions of the past or the non-Christian religions of
today. They don't say so openly, but that is the fullest consequence of
their arguments.
4) It is un-scientific. Any conspiracy theory, of course, fails to
embrace the scientific method, which requires a relaxed, open mind and
the willingness to try to overthrow your own theory, so that it can be
tested thoroughly. There are many further ways in which this point
could be made. You could say quite correctly that the theory of Jesus'
non-existence is overly complex; it creates special explanations,
circumstances, and standards for everything encountered, thus breaking
the rule known as Occam's razor, which states that entities are not to
be multiplied and that all things being equal, the simplest theory is
the best. You could point out that the theory tries to prove a
negative, an extremely difficult thing to do according to the
principles of logic, and a goal that requires extraordinary evidence,
not merely the "absence" of evidence. You could describe another no-no
of scholarship, known as special pleading, which happens when the
theory of non-existence says that things do not appear as common sense
would dictate because of special reasons, such as suppression of
evidence, and forgery. Many good theories, of course, ask you to
suspend your common sense. The earth revolves around the sun, as common
sense would not tell you. But notice, that is said to be a common
mistake made by all people in all historical epochs. What we have with
Jesus-denial is the charge that some people knew then, and know now,
what most people have not known. That is very different, and it
requires historical proofs, none of which are forthcoming. The only
thing offered is suspicion without consummation. No experiments are
run; nothing falsifiable is said; no science is therefore done.
5) It is ignorant. It comes from people who have degrees in English,
German, biology -- anything but graduate degrees in history, antiquity,
religion, ancient languages or Biblical studies. When it does quote
scholars from those fields, it goes back to 19th century work, and
avoids all recent 20th century advances in biblical studies,
archaeology, ethnography, etc. It avoids scholars of non-Christian
religions, too, and quotes only people who study other things, so that
when, for instance, the god Mithra is said to be Christ's precursor,
with a virgin birth and the like, no Mithra scholars are consulted, and
only non-Mithra scholars are quoted. As such, the theory remained on
the fringes until recently, always just outside mainstream work, and
was hard to find without looking for it specifically. I majored in
Religion and attended a year of seminary; in later years I read the
definitive works on the historical Jesus, and consulted those works
even as an atheist; but I had never heard of a fully articulated theory
of non-existence, because when you study history and religion, you
don't come across the proponents of the theory; they always have
training in something else. Yet they push their opinions about one of
history's central questions. I am no linguist, but if you asked me to
overthrow the mainstream theories about the origin of English, and told
me I could not consult any scholars of English except to note where
they can be debunked, you can imagine the quality of what you'll get
from me.
6) It is arrogant. The only way to test ideas is to come into dialogue
with other ideas, chiefly those constructed by people with knowledge of
the subject. Often good theories are complex, and require a lot of
reading and hard work to sift the evidence. But the theory of
non-existence holds mainly that evidence can be judged, not according
to its content, but according to who wrote it. Therefore, the Bible can
be dismissed; Biblical scholarship can be dismissed. In this the theory
betrays its ignorance of Biblical scholarship, which is full of
agnostics and even some atheists. It seems entirely unaware of what
current scholars, secular and biblical, are saying, but it nevertheless
relies heavily on a very dangerous phrase, "Most scholars believe that"
(fill in the blank: Jesus was a myth-figure, he said nothing of what's
in the Gospels, etc.) A true scholar can get away with summarizing his
or her field; but if you're not in the field, forget it. Even so, most
people who rely on common sense know that the vast majority of
scientific work on the ancient world, its scriptures, languages,
archaeology and beliefs, has been done in the 20th century. Biblical
scholarship has incorporated all that work and is now typically based
upon it. The definitive works on Jesus are not apologetics, and they
openly defy religious or church dogma; but skeptics have long since
stopped listening, and they operate on the assumption that the only
options on the table are Biblical literalism or Biblical atheism.
Basically the attitude is, "I do not need to read those who are
trained, because they are biased; I do not need any special training
myself, and I have no relevant biases." Well, Copernicus dared to
believe that everything he'd been taught on a certain subject could be
wrong; but he was a master practitioner in that field. Tell that to
those who think they are following in Copernicus' footsteps: you will
simply be told in reply that you love your subject and therefore cannot
be trusted to know it well.
7) It is extreme. No secular and relevantly credentialed historian
holds the theory, for at least one very simple reason: there was too
little time. Myths are told about people who lived far away, in another
time and place ("a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away"); no one
living in the local area can contradict the myth, and the imagination
can let loose. Christian writings started surfacing only 20 years after
Jesus "purportedly" lived, so the question comes up: why didn't anyone
contradict the claim that Jesus lived and interacted with famous local
figures? Well, they did, according to the theory, but their testimonies
were destroyed by the Church; or in a variation, they didn't speak up,
because the Romans killed them all off in the war 40 years after
Christ's "purported" lifetime. No historian has produced a comparable
example of a myth that overcame all historical objections so quickly.
But Christ is said to be such a myth. And people -- reasonable,
well-educated people (but not well-educated about religion) -- are
finding such arguments reasonable in rising numbers, I fear. Why is
evolution being disbelieved these days in favor of creationism? Because
our schooling in science, our scientific literacy, is abysmal. Why,
then, with our commonly abysmal education about religion, do we not
exert more skepticism toward the things we hear and say about religious
topics?
8) It is radically partisan and self-contradictory. The destruction of
Christianity's root beliefs always takes precedence over consistent and
fairly applied standards. Logic is always sacrificed to the goal. This
one can only be explained at length by diving deeply into the content,
so I will leave it for another post. But see John Meier's multi-volume
work on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew, which systematically lays
out the logical criteria needed for this kind of work.
9) It is denial, and not history. History describes what happened.
Denial is concerned to say that such-and-such did not happen. It does
not say that things happened in an alternative or under-appreciated
way, only that they did not happen. It is not a positive description;
it offers no positive alternative -- and by positive I don't mean
happy, I mean simply a map of events rather than non-events. The only
events described are writings, or acts of forgery, often by no-names
("Christian scribes") working in the dark. Actual events, other than
writing, go without much description or investigation for their own
sake; they are brought in only for the conspiracy theory. Individuals
contributing anything are said to be mythical beings invented by the
true agency, the collective cult with its need for survival and power.
Individuals are cut out of history entirely, and shorn of their
personal names, except occasionally for individuals who did have a
certain genuis at forgery: those are the only people named, dated, and
described at length. Bodies are taken out of history, and men such as
Christ become disembodied ghosts or ideas -- a terribly unhistorical
project, even an Orwellian one. Any piece of evidence that the theory
does not like goes down the "memory hole." And of course, in this case
what is being denied is not merely neutral, but something that is all
too often denied: suffering. The rejection, torture, and capital
punishment of an innocent individual is pushed out of existence or
otherwise shorn of its meaning. To deny history is always to deny pain
and suffering.
10) It is bigoted. It is committed to destroying or defaming
Christians, of course, and is sometimes especially hostile to Roman
Catholicism. But it is necessarily exploitative of other religions,
even those it nominally champions. Moreover, it always denies the deep
relationship between Judaism and Christianity, and seeks to overturn
mainstream biblical scholarship's deep and healing dialogue with
Judaism, by making Christianity exclusively a pastiche of non-Jewish
religions which the Jewish people, historically, despised -- not least
because paganism oppressed them so cruelly. In many ways, the theory
represents anything but progressive scholarship shedding light on
victims, whether they be Jews or Gentiles; the only oppression it
recognizes is that committed by Christianity. Its conclusions are
welcomed, disturbingly, by anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic bigots.
Meier's volume is the definitive treatise on the historical Jesus,
though it does not spend any time directly tackling the theory of
nonexistence. For that, many links on the web exist, and of course a
good deal of them are from folks who are more conservative about the
Bible than I am. My favorite collection of essays about this theory is
at Bede's Library: see http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm. That page
has one very telling essay on the judgments of secular and atheist
historians on this issue.
This statement by James Hannam on the home page describes my sentiments
very closely, though it does not describe my life: "The aim of Bede's
Library is [to] show how a person from a scientific background came to
Christianity and has had his faith strengthened rather than weakened by
argument and reason." My own story might say something rather about an
intellectual who gave his heart as a child to science and faith, and
has found inexpressible joys as an adult by practicing these things,
often on unexpected paths.
Peace,
Kevin
posted by Kevin Rosero at 8:41 PM
http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2005/04/jesus-denial.html
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
19 Jul 2005 11:43:05 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Authority is the least trustworthy source.
And since God is the supreme authority....what then?
Mere fallible human authority and God's absolute
supreme authority are not comparable.
And you got this from....where? Out of your rear end?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
19 Jul 2005 11:52:33 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Authority is the least trustworthy source.
And since God is the supreme authority....what then?
Mere fallible human authority and God's absolute
supreme authority are not comparable.
And you got this from....where? Out of your rear end?
Hysteria is good.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
20 Jul 2005 12:07:07 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Authority is the least trustworthy source.
And since God is the supreme authority....what then?
Mere fallible human authority and God's absolute
supreme authority are not comparable.
And you got this from....where? Out of your rear end?
Hysteria is good.
Thanks for your admission. The first step to recovery is admitting that
you have a problem. :-)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
16 Jul 2005 05:15:57 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
Bingo. Serious thinkers require proof, idiots believe dispite the lack t
hereof.
Written evidence is evidence, in the case of the existence 9as opposed to
divinity of) Jesus it ia absolutely conclusive evidence.
Proof? ROFLMAO!!!! You have snails and whales and old wive's tales, and
not
a thing more.
If you believe, great. I applaud your ability to suspend disbelief. To
tell
us there is proof of his existence, otoh, is rubbish, 10 days old, filled
with fish and chicken entrails, roasting in the sun.
50 documents written within living memory of a person and attesting to His
existence is conclusive proof.
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned into a
non-serious thinker.
So someone failing to attract the notice of anyone at all during his
lifetime must be real if a story written 50 years later claims he was?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 01:56:52 AM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
So someone failing to attract the notice of anyone at all during his
lifetime must be real if a story written 50 years later claims he was?
St Paul writes about Jesus certainly within thirty years, and describes how
he was a member of the movement founded by Him for many years before.
So at least one person took notice of Jesus before AD83.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 04:35:35 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
So someone failing to attract the notice of anyone at all during his
lifetime must be real if a story written 50 years later claims he was?
St Paul writes about Jesus certainly within thirty years, and describes how
he was a member of the movement founded by Him for many years before.
So at least one person took notice of Jesus before AD83.
Care to point out where he does that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 05:50:43 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
St Paul writes about Jesus certainly within thirty years, and describes
how he was a member of the movement founded by Him for many years before.
So at least one person took notice of Jesus before AD83.
Care to point out where he does that?
First .lines of Paul in the NT
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle.
Now the ball is in your court to show that Paul didn't belive such a person
as Jesus Christ to exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 06:36:57 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
St Paul writes about Jesus certainly within thirty years, and describes
how he was a member of the movement founded by Him for many years before.
So at least one person took notice of Jesus before AD83.
Care to point out where he does that?
First .lines of Paul in the NT
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle.
Now the ball is in your court to show that Paul didn't belive such a person
as Jesus Christ to exist.
Nope, you are supposed to be showing us where Paul claimed Jesus was a
person from recent history
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 03:41:13 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle.
Nope, you are supposed to be showing us where Paul claimed Jesus was > a
person from recent history
"Apostle" means "eyewitness to the resurrection". So it's pretty much a
claim that Jesus was recent, since the other apostles were His companions.
St Paul doesn't give any dates. But there is no evidence that he considered
Jesus to be someone long dead and then all of a sudden revealed to him. The
conventional chronology holds water, the "celestial Jesus" theory just leads
to trouble when somehow you have shoehorn in the gospels and the other
apostles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 03:52:07 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle.
Nope, you are supposed to be showing us where Paul claimed Jesus was a
person from recent history
"Apostle" means "eyewitness to the resurrection". So it's pretty much a
claim that Jesus was recent, since the other apostles were His companions.
Apostle may be used that way by some, but that is neither the
definition nor the derivation of the word.
Apostle
1=2E a. One of a group made up especially of the 12 disciples chosen by
Jesus to preach the gospel.
- b. A missionary of the early Christian Church.
- c. A leader of the first Christian mission to a country or region.
2=2E One of the 12 members of the administrative council in the Mormon
Church.
3=2E a. One who pioneers an important reform movement, cause, or belief:
an apostle of conservation.
- b. A passionate adherent; a strong supporter.
[Middle English, from Old English apostol, and from Old French apostle
both from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos, messenger, from
apostellein, to send off : apo-, apo- + stellein, to send;
Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.=20
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 04:43:28 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
Ash wrote:
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle.
Nope, you are supposed to be showing us where Paul claimed
Jesus was a person from recent history
"Apostle" means "eyewitness to the resurrection".
Therefore, Paul, not having been an eyewitness to the
resurrection, was not an apostle.
Aren't you now in deep ***** for calling Paul a liar?
So it's pretty
much a claim that Jesus was recent, since the other apostles
were His companions.
So, what you're saying is that Paul never saw Jesus, never met
him, and never even described him as a living person...but that he
hanged around with some people who said they did. And that,
conveniently, nobody can manage to even point to the original
words of these companions. Yet, somehow, it all conclusively
proves that Paul proved that somebody proved that somebody named
Jesus actually existed who fit the description.
Yup, that's just about par for ``fifty documents'' Malcom, a.a.'s
happenin' *****. He lies about his own demigods, and tries to pass
off third-hand hearsay as proof positive.
Nice yapping. Do us some more, *****.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
The Jesus challenge: put up or shut up http://tinyurl.com/9x22f
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 04:06:54 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 06:56:52 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
So someone failing to attract the notice of anyone at all during his
lifetime must be real if a story written 50 years later claims he was?
St Paul writes about Jesus certainly within thirty years, and describes how
he was a member of the movement founded by Him for many years before.
So at least one person took notice of Jesus before AD83.
And he never knew him. His Jesus is a different Jesus than the one in
the Gospels.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
16 Jul 2005 08:06:55 PM |
|
|
And there are also writings from many many Jewish scholars from that
time -- but nothing written by jesus -- what happened he was too busy
doing miracles and didn't learn to write?
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dbc0ur$osg$2@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
: Malcolm wrote:
: > "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
: >
: >>Bingo. Serious thinkers require proof, idiots believe dispite the
lack t
: >>hereof.
: >>
: >>
: >>>Written evidence is evidence, in the case of the existence 9as
opposed to
: >>>divinity of) Jesus it ia absolutely conclusive evidence.
: >>
: >>Proof? ROFLMAO!!!! You have snails and whales and old wive's tales,
and
: >>not
: >>a thing more.
: >>
: >>If you believe, great. I applaud your ability to suspend disbelief.
To
: >>tell
: >>us there is proof of his existence, otoh, is rubbish, 10 days old,
filled
: >>with fish and chicken entrails, roasting in the sun.
: >>
: >
: > 50 documents written within living memory of a person and attesting
to His
: > existence is conclusive proof.
: > You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned into a
: > non-serious thinker.
: >
: >
: So someone failing to attract the notice of anyone at all during his
: lifetime must be real if a story written 50 years later claims he was?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
19 Jul 2005 10:24:29 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
Bingo. Serious thinkers require proof, idiots believe dispite the lack t
hereof.
Written evidence is evidence, in the case of the existence 9as opposed to
divinity of) Jesus it ia absolutely conclusive evidence.
Proof? ROFLMAO!!!! You have snails and whales and old wive's tales, and
not
a thing more.
If you believe, great. I applaud your ability to suspend disbelief. To
tell
us there is proof of his existence, otoh, is rubbish, 10 days old, filled
with fish and chicken entrails, roasting in the sun.
50 documents written within living memory of a person and attesting to His
existence is conclusive proof.
Memory is unreliable.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
19 Jul 2005 11:13:03 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
Bingo. Serious thinkers require proof, idiots believe dispite the lack t
hereof.
Written evidence is evidence, in the case of the existence 9as opposed to
divinity of) Jesus it ia absolutely conclusive evidence.
Proof? ROFLMAO!!!! You have snails and whales and old wive's tales, and
not
a thing more.
If you believe, great. I applaud your ability to suspend disbelief. To
tell
us there is proof of his existence, otoh, is rubbish, 10 days old, filled
with fish and chicken entrails, roasting in the sun.
50 documents written within living memory of a person and attesting to His
existence is conclusive proof.
Memory is unreliable.
Which is why we need more contemporary evidence, such as Pontius
Pilate's crucifixion order for Jesus. That should do nicely. Do you
have it handy?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
20 Jul 2005 10:38:38 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
Bingo. Serious thinkers require proof, idiots believe dispite the lack t
hereof.
Written evidence is evidence, in the case of the existence 9as opposed to
divinity of) Jesus it ia absolutely conclusive evidence.
Proof? ROFLMAO!!!! You have snails and whales and old wive's tales, and
not
a thing more.
If you believe, great. I applaud your ability to suspend disbelief. To
tell
us there is proof of his existence, otoh, is rubbish, 10 days old, filled
with fish and chicken entrails, roasting in the sun.
50 documents written within living memory of a person and attesting to His
existence is conclusive proof.
Memory is unreliable.
Which is why we need more contemporary evidence, such as Pontius
Pilate's crucifixion order for Jesus. That should do nicely. Do you
have it handy?
The Vatican has buried in its deepest darkest vaults all the relics and
secrets lost to the world. Its time you informed them of the
Freedom of Information Act. Ether that or enter a seminary
and work your way up to Pope.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
16 Jul 2005 04:53:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:12:18 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
Bingo. Serious thinkers require proof, idiots believe dispite the lack t
hereof.
Written evidence is evidence, in the case of the existence 9as opposed to
divinity of) Jesus it ia absolutely conclusive evidence.
Proof? ROFLMAO!!!! You have snails and whales and old wive's tales, and
not
a thing more.
If you believe, great. I applaud your ability to suspend disbelief. To
tell
us there is proof of his existence, otoh, is rubbish, 10 days old, filled
with fish and chicken entrails, roasting in the sun.
50 documents written within living memory of a person and attesting to His
existence is conclusive proof.
So provide them. But not as part of a work of religious propaganda
that was put together 300 years after the alleged events, and edited
to include or exclude things to fit.
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned into a
non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your fruits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 01:56:52 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned into a
non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it turns out that they
are Muslims who believe in a literal interpretation of the verse "Islam
shall endure until man walks on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you
can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus didn't exist. It
really is so absurd that it cannot be taken seriously. Those who suggest
such a thing disqualify themselves as serious thinkers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 01:10:29 PM |
|
|
And you are one ignorant British ***** -- No wonder the Empire is dead.
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbcvfj$984$7@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
: "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
: >
: >>You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned into a
: >>non-serious thinker.
: >
: > Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
: > substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
: >
: > What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
: >
: > You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your
fruits.
: >
: If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it turns out
that they
: are Muslims who believe in a literal interpretation of the verse
"Islam
: shall endure until man walks on the Moon" there's only one conclusion
you
: can draw.
:
: Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus didn't
exist. It
: really is so absurd that it cannot be taken seriously. Those who
suggest
: such a thing disqualify themselves as serious thinkers.
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 04:36:56 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned into a
non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it turns out that they
are Muslims who believe in a literal interpretation of the verse "Islam
shall endure until man walks on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you
can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus didn't exist. It
really is so absurd that it cannot be taken seriously. Those who suggest
such a thing disqualify themselves as serious thinkers.
Yet that is your only argument against it. When people suggest that man
didn't walk on the moon, their arguments can be examined and criticises
and compared to the argument that man did not work on the moon. Simply
saying "nope not true" convinced no one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 02:13:11 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned
into a non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your
fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it
turns out that they are Muslims who believe in a literal
interpretation of the verse "Islam shall endure until man walks
on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus
didn't exist. It really is so absurd that it cannot be taken
seriously. Those who suggest such a thing disqualify themselves
as serious thinkers.
And yet, for every moon rock, for every piece of film, for
every NASA recording, for every interview with Messrs. Armstrong,
Aldrin, Collins, and the rest, you can offer...absolutely nothing
in the way of primary sources for evidence of Jesus. All your
secondary sources are clearly fraudulent or irrelevant, and your
tertiary sources are completely without provenance.
That, Malcom, makes /you/ the one disqualified as a serious
thinker.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
17 Jul 2005 11:55:34 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned
into a non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your
fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it
turns out that they are Muslims who believe in a literal
interpretation of the verse "Islam shall endure until man walks
on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus
didn't exist. It really is so absurd that it cannot be taken
seriously. Those who suggest such a thing disqualify themselves
as serious thinkers.
And yet, for every moon rock,
Those crummy little pieces of rock may mean something to someone, but
to the ordinary person, they prove the moon landing like a "genuine
piece of the cross" proves the crucifixion. You personally have no
tools to verify its origin, so you take it on faith.
for every piece of film,
Come now. Hollywood has been faking all that stuff for decades, and
you have no way to discern the best fake from the truth. - So you take
it on faith.
for
every NASA recording,
My, how picky you are with your proofs. And of course you would took
seriously the Mercury Theatre On-The-Air radio broadcast of HG Wells'
"War of the Worlds" in 1938. http://www.earthstation1.com/wotw.html
Such is your faith!
for every interview with Messrs. Armstrong,
Aldrin, Collins, and the rest,
Let me give you some advice: Do not watch the film "Interview with a
Vampire" - You are too willing to believe everything you hear, and it
might destroy your whole little cage of sanity.
you can offer...absolutely nothing
in the way of primary sources for evidence of Jesus.
Sad to say, Ben Goren has few "direct proofs" of anything, and
certainly none of the moon landing.
All your
secondary sources are clearly fraudulent or irrelevant, and your
tertiary sources are completely without provenance.
Ben Goren personally has less proof of the moon landing than of Frodo's
trek to destroy the "One Ring of Power" in the desolation of Mordor.
His one standard of for truth seems to be "What are the talking heads
saying about this?" If they support it, Ben Goren believes it.
That, Malcom, makes /you/ the one disqualified as a serious
thinker.
...
All but God can prove this sentence true.
OK, YOU prove it then. We await.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 04:52:32 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned
into a non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your
fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it
turns out that they are Muslims who believe in a literal
interpretation of the verse "Islam shall endure until man walks
on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus
didn't exist. It really is so absurd that it cannot be taken
seriously. Those who suggest such a thing disqualify themselves
as serious thinkers.
And yet, for every moon rock,
Those crummy little pieces of rock may mean something to someone, but
to the ordinary person, they prove the moon landing like a "genuine
piece of the cross" proves the crucifixion. You personally have no
tools to verify its origin, so you take it on faith.
for every piece of film,
Come now. Hollywood has been faking all that stuff for decades, and
you have no way to discern the best fake from the truth. - So you take
it on faith.
for
every NASA recording,
My, how picky you are with your proofs. And of course you would took
seriously the Mercury Theatre On-The-Air radio broadcast of HG Wells'
"War of the Worlds" in 1938. http://www.earthstation1.com/wotw.html
Such is your faith!
for every interview with Messrs. Armstrong,
Aldrin, Collins, and the rest,
Let me give you some advice: Do not watch the film "Interview with a
Vampire" - You are too willing to believe everything you hear, and it
might destroy your whole little cage of sanity.
you can offer...absolutely nothing
in the way of primary sources for evidence of Jesus.
Sad to say, Ben Goren has few "direct proofs" of anything, and
certainly none of the moon landing.
All your
secondary sources are clearly fraudulent or irrelevant, and your
tertiary sources are completely without provenance.
Ben Goren personally has less proof of the moon landing than of Frodo's
trek to destroy the "One Ring of Power" in the desolation of Mordor.
His one standard of for truth seems to be "What are the talking heads
saying about this?" If they support it, Ben Goren believes it.
That, Malcom, makes /you/ the one disqualified as a serious
thinker.
...
All but God can prove this sentence true.
OK, YOU prove it then. We await.
TCross
Indeed, if a person wishes to be a doubter, they can doubt any event
from History. This has nothing to do with whether those doubts are
reasonable, or the issue of Jesus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 12:01:12 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned
into a non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your
fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it
turns out that they are Muslims who believe in a literal
interpretation of the verse "Islam shall endure until man walks
on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus
didn't exist. It really is so absurd that it cannot be taken
seriously. Those who suggest such a thing disqualify themselves
as serious thinkers.
And yet, for every moon rock,
Those crummy little pieces of rock may mean something to someone, but
to the ordinary person, they prove the moon landing like a "genuine
piece of the cross" proves the crucifixion. You personally have no
tools to verify its origin, so you take it on faith.
for every piece of film,
Come now. Hollywood has been faking all that stuff for decades, and
you have no way to discern the best fake from the truth. - So you take
it on faith.
for
every NASA recording,
My, how picky you are with your proofs. And of course you would took
seriously the Mercury Theatre On-The-Air radio broadcast of HG Wells'
"War of the Worlds" in 1938. http://www.earthstation1.com/wotw.html
Such is your faith!
for every interview with Messrs. Armstrong,
Aldrin, Collins, and the rest,
Let me give you some advice: Do not watch the film "Interview with a
Vampire" - You are too willing to believe everything you hear, and it
might destroy your whole little cage of sanity.
you can offer...absolutely nothing
in the way of primary sources for evidence of Jesus.
Sad to say, Ben Goren has few "direct proofs" of anything, and
certainly none of the moon landing.
All your
secondary sources are clearly fraudulent or irrelevant, and your
tertiary sources are completely without provenance.
Ben Goren personally has less proof of the moon landing than of Frodo's
trek to destroy the "One Ring of Power" in the desolation of Mordor.
His one standard of for truth seems to be "What are the talking heads
saying about this?" If they support it, Ben Goren believes it.
That, Malcom, makes /you/ the one disqualified as a serious
thinker.
...
All but God can prove this sentence true.
OK, YOU prove it then. We await.
TCross
Indeed, if a person wishes to be a doubter, they can doubt any event
from History. This has nothing to do with whether those doubts are
reasonable, or the issue of Jesus
The same goes for believers. You can believe anything you want, with
reason or no reason.
I happen to believe the moon landings took place. My point was to show
you that you have pitiful little information to "prove" the moon
landings. YOU take it on faith, inference, 4th hand information, and a
willingness to believe, -- which are all very non-materialistic
approaches to truth.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 01:01:02 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Ash wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned
into a non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an acceptable
substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by your
fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it
turns out that they are Muslims who believe in a literal
interpretation of the verse "Islam shall endure until man walks
on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus
didn't exist. It really is so absurd that it cannot be taken
seriously. Those who suggest such a thing disqualify themselves
as serious thinkers.
And yet, for every moon rock,
Those crummy little pieces of rock may mean something to someone, but
to the ordinary person, they prove the moon landing like a "genuine
piece of the cross" proves the crucifixion. You personally have no
tools to verify its origin, so you take it on faith.
for every piece of film,
Come now. Hollywood has been faking all that stuff for decades, and
you have no way to discern the best fake from the truth. - So you take
it on faith.
for
every NASA recording,
My, how picky you are with your proofs. And of course you would took
seriously the Mercury Theatre On-The-Air radio broadcast of HG Wells'
"War of the Worlds" in 1938. http://www.earthstation1.com/wotw.html
Such is your faith!
for every interview with Messrs. Armstrong,
Aldrin, Collins, and the rest,
Let me give you some advice: Do not watch the film "Interview with a
Vampire" - You are too willing to believe everything you hear, and it
might destroy your whole little cage of sanity.
you can offer...absolutely nothing
in the way of primary sources for evidence of Jesus.
Sad to say, Ben Goren has few "direct proofs" of anything, and
certainly none of the moon landing.
All your
secondary sources are clearly fraudulent or irrelevant, and your
tertiary sources are completely without provenance.
Ben Goren personally has less proof of the moon landing than of Frodo's
trek to destroy the "One Ring of Power" in the desolation of Mordor.
His one standard of for truth seems to be "What are the talking heads
saying about this?" If they support it, Ben Goren believes it.
That, Malcom, makes /you/ the one disqualified as a serious
thinker.
...
All but God can prove this sentence true.
OK, YOU prove it then. We await.
TCross
Indeed, if a person wishes to be a doubter, they can doubt any event
from History. This has nothing to do with whether those doubts are
reasonable, or the issue of Jesus
The same goes for believers. You can believe anything you want, with
reason or no reason.
I happen to believe the moon landings took place. My point was to show
you that you have pitiful little information to "prove" the moon
landings. YOU take it on faith, inference, 4th hand information, and a
willingness to believe, -- which are all very non-materialistic
approaches to truth.
That and the evidence, which is of course lacking for Jesus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 07:30:11 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Indeed, if a person wishes to be a doubter, they can doubt any event
from History. This has nothing to do with whether those doubts are
reasonable, or the issue of Jesus
The same goes for believers. You can believe anything you want, with
reason or no reason.
I happen to believe the moon landings took place. My point was to show
you that you have pitiful little information to "prove" the moon
landings. YOU take it on faith, inference, 4th hand information, and a
willingness to believe, -- which are all very non-materialistic
approaches to truth.
That and the evidence, which is of course lacking for Jesus
Your evidence for the Moon landing consists of your faith in the
government and the media. That is all. If you have believe them,
there is no question about a moon landing. But if you question them,
there is no other source. It's a little like you say of the Bible.
Being a mental slave of the government and the media must make life
simple. But do you believe all the campaign promises and the
commercials, too?
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 11:08:09 AM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned
into a non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an
acceptable substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false
witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by
your fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it
turns out that they are Muslims who believe in a literal
interpretation of the verse "Islam shall endure until man
walks on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus
didn't exist. It really is so absurd that it cannot be
taken seriously. Those who suggest such a thing disqualify
themselves as serious thinkers.
And yet, for every moon rock,
Those crummy little pieces of rock may mean something to
someone, but to the ordinary person, they prove the moon
landing like a "genuine piece of the cross" proves the
crucifixion. You personally have no tools to verify its
origin, so you take it on faith.
for every piece of film,
Come now. Hollywood has been faking all that stuff for
decades, and you have no way to discern the best fake from the
truth. - So you take it on faith.
for every NASA recording,
My, how picky you are with your proofs. And of course
you would took seriously the Mercury Theatre On-The-Air
radio broadcast of HG Wells' "War of the Worlds" in 1938.
http://www.earthstation1.com/wotw.html
Such is your faith!
for every interview with Messrs. Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins,
and the rest,
Let me give you some advice: Do not watch the film "Interview
with a Vampire" - You are too willing to believe everything you
hear, and it might destroy your whole little cage of sanity.
you can offer...absolutely nothing in the way of primary
sources for evidence of Jesus.
Sad to say, Ben Goren has few "direct proofs" of anything, and
certainly none of the moon landing.
All your secondary sources are clearly fraudulent or
irrelevant, and your tertiary sources are completely without
provenance.
Ben Goren personally has less proof of the moon landing than of
Frodo's trek to destroy the "One Ring of Power" in the
desolation of Mordor. His one standard of for truth seems to
be "What are the talking heads saying about this?" If they
support it, Ben Goren believes it.
That, Malcom, makes /you/ the one disqualified as a serious
thinker.
...
All but God can prove this sentence true.
OK, YOU prove it then. We await.
TCross
Indeed, if a person wishes to be a doubter, they can doubt any
event from History. This has nothing to do with whether those
doubts are reasonable, or the issue of Jesus
What, that Nazi is one of those ``the moon landings were
faked'' imbeciles, too? Hardly surprising any more. Man, what an
*****. The *****'ll believe anything some kook says with
authority, and the more bloody, the more vicious, the more
scandalous, the more hateful, the better. Why do I have this
sinking feeling that next up for Terry is spreading the lie that
Israel was responsible for the September 11 attacks?
Terry Cross is a Nazi and a revisionist.
http://tinyurl.com/c8d7s
I urge all moral people to shun Terry. Do not reply to any of
Terry's posts except with this (or a similar) message.
NEVER AGAIN!
Sincerely,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
The Jesus challenge: put up or shut up http://tinyurl.com/9x22f
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Denial Is Hate Crime |
18 Jul 2005 11:30:24 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Ash wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
You can't see that because ideological prejudice has turned
into a non-serious thinker.
Do you seriously imagine that personal lies are an
acceptable substitute for backing up your baseless claims?
What does your religion tell you about "bearing false
witness"?
You're behaving exactly like a Christian: we know you by
your fruits.
If someone says "the moon landings didn't happen" and it
turns out that they are Muslims who believe in a literal
interpretation of the verse "Islam shall endure until man
walks on the Moon" there's only one conclusion you can draw.
Ditto for atheists or Jews promoting the notion that Jesus
| | | | | | | |
