Real-Jesus apologists love to quote Galatians 1:19 as evidence for a historical Jesus. The passage tells us:
Quote...but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.
Many people misquote this passage as referring to a "James, the brother of Jesus," but it actually refers to James as "the Lord's brother."
In any case, most people and presumably most scholars interpret this passage from Galatians as a reference to James as the blood-brother of Jesus. Bart Ehrman, for example, argues that since Jesus had a brother, then Jesus must have existed! (Brilliant logic there, Bart. Assume what you try to prove.)
But I think there is a fatal flaw with this argument aside from the question-begging. In that same chapter in verses 11-12 we read:
QuoteFor I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
So if Paul knew James who was a blood-brother of Jesus, then why did Paul never preach anything about Jesus that James, the brother of Jesus might have told him about Jesus? Surely a blood-brother of Jesus who knew Paul would have shared much of his first-hand knowledge of his brother Jesus with Paul. Yet Paul tells us that, no, nothing he preached about Jesus came from this James or any other person.
So I must conclude that the James mentioned in Galatians 1:19 was almost certainly not the blood-brother of Jesus, and real-Jesus apologists have no smoking gun here.
Yeah, I agree, Jagella, that Jesus was/is a fiction. Just like in many other fictions, the created characters can have as many fictional brothers and sisters as the author wants. So, if Pecos Bill had a brother, then that would mean Pecos Bill was real and not fictional? Don't think so.
I have found that the most prolific NT author, Paul, does not mention much, if anything, about a real flesh and blood Jesus, but fails to use any of Jesus' arguments to bolster his own; who better to lend credence to his ideas than the creator of said ideas? Yet, nothing of that nature.
What many people fail to realize is that the NT is not arranged in chronological order--if so, then all of Paul's writings would come first and the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts, and John strung out in the middle to the end of the NT. Read in that order, a different picture of Jesus appears. The editors of the NT were not ignorant of the principles of propaganda.
Yeah, Sherlock Holmes was said to have had a brother, named Mycroft, so he must've been a real person as well!
Not only did Paul not use Jesus as a source for his doctrine, but he directly contradicted Jesus many times in his letters.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 28, 2019, 11:58:44 AM
Yeah, I agree, Jagella, that Jesus was/is a fiction.
Well, I'm really not arguing here that Jesus didn't exist. I'm saying that arguing that Jesus existed because he had a brother named James is illogical. I'm unsure that Jesus existed, but I am sure that there is no good reason to believe he existed. So those who say there was a historical Jesus are not making a good case, in my opinion. Their evidence is weak and their logic is fallacious.
QuoteJust like in many other fictions, the created characters can have as many fictional brothers and sisters as the author wants. So, if Pecos Bill had a brother, then that would mean Pecos Bill was real and not fictional? Don't think so.
Some real-Jesus apologists assert without good reason that James was Jesus' sibling. As I argue in the OP, it's a sure bet that James was not Jesus' sibling.
QuoteI have found that the most prolific NT author, Paul, does not mention much, if anything, about a real flesh and blood Jesus, but fails to use any of Jesus' arguments to bolster his own; who better to lend credence to his ideas than the creator of said ideas? Yet, nothing of that nature.
Maurice Casey argues that Paul didn't bother to tell the gentile Christians about the life of Jesus because Jesus was a Jew, and gentiles just don't care about Jewish ways. Funny, I'm a gentile, but I want to know about the Judaism in the gospel.
At any rate, you would think that Paul and James would have talked a lot about Jesus, Paul wanting to know what it was like being Jesus' brother. But Paul tells us that all he preached--and by extension all he knew--about Jesus was not from James. This scenario makes no sense if James was the blood-brother of Jesus.
QuoteWhat many people fail to realize is that the NT is not arranged in chronological order--if so, then all of Paul's writings would come first and the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts, and John strung out in the middle to the end of the NT. Read in that order, a different picture of Jesus appears. The editors of the NT were not ignorant of the principles of propaganda.
Yes, it seems unlikely to me that if Jesus existed, then his life's story was written down after his being deified.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 28, 2019, 01:18:19 PM
Yeah, Sherlock Holmes was said to have had a brother, named Mycroft, so he must've been a real person as well!
It's a little more complicated than that. If we follow the logic of real-Jesus apologists, then Sherlock Holmes would be a real person if somebody said that they knew his brother, Mycroft. How, they might ask, could Mycroft be Sherlock's brother if Sherlock didn't exist?
QuoteNot only did Paul not use Jesus as a source for his doctrine, but he directly contradicted Jesus many times in his letters.
What has often struck me as different between Jesus and Paul is that Jesus taught people to obey the law to be saved while Paul preached that the law cannot save. It appears that Paul was unaware of what Jesus supposedly taught. We can explain this paradox by concluding that there was no belief in the law-giving Jesus until long after Paul preached and died. So assuming Jesus never existed is very handy for answering these kinds of questions.
Quote from: Jagella on May 28, 2019, 11:38:18 AM
In any case, most people and presumably most scholars interpret this passage from Galatians as a reference to James as the blood-brother of Jesus. Bart Ehrman, for example, argues that since Jesus had a brother, then Jesus must have existed!
That one made me spew a mouthful of coffee on my monitor.
Quote from: SGOS on May 28, 2019, 05:41:59 PM
That one made me spew a mouthful of coffee on my monitor.
Are you serious? I'm sorry if I made you spew coffee. LOL
One other argument that real-Jesus apologists make (and that I hope doesn't make you throw up) is that the Jesus-myth theory is essentially an atheist conspiracy against Christendom. Bart Ehrman, for instance, writes the following in his Huffington Post article, Did Jesus Exist? (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJ1Q_8dv_hNpfRPqXBUSXeUz25T8B9n43y5qeuVQ8uze4260fXmdtWP9kSx4VLknWhefb0FbZCcGFJnpwnK3jCwLp4swAJXE32nT5XU-QLllvpy6KgkWmLI7S2h1-PJIESooiD1xd_Pbm0o4ASWQvWkEXS9XSYhw5BOpuQ8asLVW)
Quote...these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion â€" a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers’ imagination?
Of course, the "deniers of Jesus" and "denouncers of religion" are atheists. While not all atheists deny or don't accept the historicity of Jesus, I think it is true that almost all Jesus-mythicists are atheists. Why is that the case?
One possible answer to this question is that most atheists don't need a historical Jesus. There is no emotional investment in his existence. As such, they can openly accept the possibility that Jesus never existed in the same way that Christians generally don't believe Hercules existed. Christians, on the other hand, will fight tooth-and-nail at any hint that there was no Christ. Others, too, may have a stake in the historicity of Jesus, and "hell hath no fury" like their belief in him scorned.
Agree? Disagree? Have another cup of coffee?
Please define "brother" and "Lord"? That isn't history, it is theology.
In ordinary terms, every male relative of comparable age was a "brother". Members of the same fraternal organization (see Chavurah) are "brothers". Pagans accused Christians of being incestuous because the men and women of the congregation addressed each other as "brother" and "sister". Later Christian practice makes all monks "brothers" and all nuns "sisters".
And "Lord". That could have been any boss at all, including Emperor Tiberius, or the Propraetor of Judea … Pontius Pilatus.
Do you realize that the original text is not only in Greek, but has no punctuation, no caps? Lord = lord. In Hebrew "lord" = "adon" … and G_d is commonly addressed as Adonai = My Lord. Are you saying that James (the Just) was G-d's brother?
I studied the "historical Jesus" question 20 years ago. I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any such person, and even if there was he was just another homeless Jew. Now, Paul, he was signficant. But Christians don't want to admit even what Paul says, let alone attribute most of what later became Christianity, to a Pharisee persecutor.
If you're studying the babble for theological reasons you easily find ways to justify the ridiculous and can put blinders on to the obvious gaps in pure reason and common sense. If you read it once or twice in a matter of fact and unbiased view the thing is overflowing with pure crap.
Quote from: Baruch on May 28, 2019, 08:20:47 PM
Please define "brother" and "Lord"? That isn't history, it is theology.
We don't know for sure what those words meant in the context of Galatians 1:18-20. Like most words, "brother" and "lord" can mean different things to different people. To save their belief in a historical Jesus, apologists insist that "brother" must mean blood-brother and "lord" must mean Jesus.
QuoteIn ordinary terms, every male relative of comparable age was a "brother". Members of the same fraternal organization (see Chavurah) are "brothers".
Sure, but again that's a meaning that apologists cannot entertain. Otherwise, they must give up on James being the blood brother of Jesus which they hope is good evidence for a historical Jesus.
QuotePagans accused Christians of being incestuous because the men and women of the congregation addressed each other as "brother" and "sister". Later Christian practice makes all monks "brothers" and all nuns "sisters".
I was not aware of the incest allegations, but in that case apologists would no doubt argue that "brother" did
not mean blood brother. So the meaning of the word depends on whatever variation suits the purposes of apologetics best.
QuoteAnd "Lord". That could have been any boss at all, including Emperor Tiberius, or the Propraetor of Judea … Pontius Pilatus.
Yes. The Greek word ΚÏÏιε can be translated as either "lord" or "master."
QuoteDo you realize that the original text is not only in Greek, but has no punctuation, no caps? Lord = lord. In Hebrew "lord" = "adon" … and G_d is commonly addressed as Adonai = My Lord. Are you saying that James (the Just) was G-d's brother?
We don't know what Paul really meant. In most cases, if Paul refers to Jesus, he says "Christ Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" or something like that, but I only know of one instance where he supposedly refers to Jesus as merely "Lord," Galatians 1:18-20.
QuoteI studied the "historical Jesus" question 20 years ago. I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any such person, and even if there was he was just another homeless Jew.
What made you come to that conclusion?
QuoteNow, Paul, he was signficant. But Christians don't want to admit even what Paul says, let alone attribute most of what later became Christianity, to a Pharisee persecutor.
Paul's story is about as suspect as the story of Jesus, and it's foolish for apologists to try to use an unknown Paul as evidence for an unknown Jesus.
Quote from: aitm on May 29, 2019, 11:54:05 AM
If you're studying the babble for theological reasons you easily find ways to justify the ridiculous and can put blinders on to the obvious gaps in pure reason and common sense. If you read it once or twice in a matter of fact and unbiased view the thing is overflowing with pure crap.
Yes. I have known Christians to admonish me not to go "too deep." I think they fear what might lurk there in "the deep."
Very few Christians have actually read the whole Bible - they'd rather just thump it. I suspect that "going deep" means reading what the Bible actually says instead of taking the meaning from the preacher, who cherry-picks what he thinks will be "good for their souls."
Quote from: Luther Burbank
Let us read the Bible without the ill-fitting colored spectacles of theology, just as we read other books, using our own judgement and reason, listening to the voice within, not to the noisy babel without. Most of us possess discriminating reasoning powers. Can we use them or must we be fed by others like babies?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 29, 2019, 02:13:42 PM
Very few Christians have actually read the whole Bible - they'd rather just thump it. I suspect that "going deep" means reading what the Bible actually says instead of taking the meaning from the preacher, who cherry-picks what he thinks will be "good for their souls."
Let's face it; reading is hard work, and considering that a printed Bible is over 1,000 pages long, few people have the time or inclination to learn its many strange stories, its boring poetry, its illogical laws, and its failed prophecies. It's so much easier, as you say, to be spoon-fed the "Bible" by the clergy. But of course it's really not the Bible they learn but what the preacher says it says. So when some upstart apostate like you or me comes along having read the Bible ourselves, we are greeted with incredulity by the faithful who are shocked when we tell them its true contents. We've got to be wrong--it's not what they've been told.
Quote from: Jagella on May 29, 2019, 10:35:20 PM
Let's face it; reading is hard work, and considering that a printed Bible is over 1,000 pages long, few people have the time or inclination to learn its many strange stories, its boring poetry, its illogical laws, and its failed prophecies. It's so much easier, as you say, to be spoon-fed the "Bible" by the clergy. But of course it's really not the Bible they learn but what the preacher says it says. So when some upstart apostate like you or me comes along having read the Bible ourselves, we are greeted with incredulity by the faithful who are shocked when we tell them its true contents. We've got to be wrong--it's not what they've been told.
The Harry Potter books (UK editions) are 3,407 pages long, and has been read by millions of people from start to finish. Yet Christians can't be bothered to read the Bible. You'd think the "Word of God" would get greater priority.
Jagella - well, it is a long story, and you asked me more than one question. To give a few highlights …
1. I didn't read the entire Bible until I was 32. Before that I read it like I do all fictional works, the start (what is the story about) and the ending (did the butler do it?). So Genesis and Revelations was pretty much it.
2. I wasn't strongly influenced by Christianity until I got married, when I was 30 ... my wife being Christian. Before that I was more indluenced by comparative religion studies (anthropology) and Zen Buddhism.
3. When my wife decided to go to seminary, to study to be a preacher, I knew I had to get more serious, to keep up. Though by that time I was already teaching Church history to adults in Church.
4. The seminaries my wife went to were liberal Protestant. Bishop Spong was an early influence for both of us, and later two of her professors were members of the Jesus Seminar. I ate that stuff up. But being of an independent mind, and my religious POV evolving constantly ...
5. My technical review of what the Jesus Seminar and other liberal historical Jesus scholars had done (read both pro and con) led me to my own independent conclusion different from the Jesus Seminar. They had decided in advance what their conclusion would be, and were testing the material in 5 gospels (Thomas included) against that hypothetical conclusion. This is a legitimate method of analysis, if done right. But I didn't have their agenda. I could review their results outside of the framework they did it in. Also I used the individual analysis of John Domnic Crossan, as a control (see empirical methods).
6. So I had to conclude that any historical actions by Jesus, aside from being symbolic of his supposed theology (acting out prophesy, like riding an ass into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday) was insignificant. For me, on the act of Jesus, the Gospel of John was primary, not the Gospel of Mark. Because we read the synoptics in the light of John. John's Gospel and Epistles being clearly gnostic based on the Song of Songs (of Solomon). A rabbinic theology of love, simliar to Rabbi Akiva, who notoriously supported the false messiah Bar Kochba.
7. I also concluded that the Greek original of Thomas, is the Q document. That the reasons given by scholarship for saying it wasn't the Q document, were specious (they were apologetics). The standard Q document ordering in based on the Gospel of Luke. A "sayings" gospel would not have the precise rhetorical structure we see in the sayings of Jesus as laid out in Luke. Luke is a more refined synoptic gospel, the last of the three (Mark being the first, then Matthew in reaction to Mark). The Gospel of Luke goes with the Acts of Paul, stylistically, and was written more refined and more Gentile, by Paul's community, in the light of 70 CE or even later. The Gospel of John is counted as the last, and the Gospel of Thomas counted as spurious, by a biased clergy.
8. Again, comparing Thomas, with John, and the genuine letter of Paul, it screams mythos and gnosis. That was the original form, not the narrative of Jesus ministry or childhood. The emphasis on the mystical Jesus came, per later evidence, come from Alexandria. The emphasis on the human Jesus, per later evidence, comes from Antioch. But the original inspiration comes from James the Just in Jerusalem. But that version died out in 135, when Jerusalem was destroyed a second time, and all Jews were permanently banned from the location of Aelia Capitolina (and they had to since the whole city and surroundings had been rendered unkosher).
9. We have Eusebius of Caesarea (and buddy of Constantine at the Nicea conference) remind us in his history, that at that point the Church became entirely Gentile. Because again, the Jewish Christians were banned from Aelia Capitlina, but Gentile Christians were not. And because again, the Jewish officials, tolerated only an approved messiah, Bar Kochba, and so savagely persecuted the Jewish Christians (Gentile Christians didn't even figure in Jerusalem at that time, because they weren't Pauline. BTW, John Dominc Crossans book on the importance of Paul, is a classic.
10. So all we have is a disordered set of aphorisms, wisdom literature comparable to Proverbs, written originally in Greek, by Hellenized Jews ... and the letter of Paul also in Greek. And the Bible at that point, for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike, was the Septuaginta (Greek OT with additions), There is nothing in all of that, or other Intertestamental literature, including other gnostic texts or Dead Sea scrolls and substantiates any historical Jesus, just the one or two antipated messiahs (an Aaronic messiah and a Davidic messiah).
Any educated member of the Therapeutae (as written about by Philo of Alexandria) could have written the Q document, or the other heterodox Jewish sect (there were several) who were part of the Hellenized Jewish community, which was extensive, until wiped out in the three Judeo-Roman wars of extermination ... in 66-74, 113-115 and 132-135 CE. And back then almost all written material was anonymous. It was later ascribed to real of fictional characters of antiquity. Only the most brazen authors, even pagans, put their name on written works. Julius Caesar, a megalomaniac, comes to mind ;-)
Basically, the 4 standard gospels, were written originall as sectarian Jewish polemic, 66-135 CE, and in the light of events, reinterpreted as anti-Semitic burlesque by the post 135 CE Pauline communities, which were totally Gentile and completely anti-Jewish and pro-Roman.
Quote from: Baruch on May 30, 2019, 12:34:46 AM
Jagella - well, it is a long story, and you asked me more than one question. To give a few highlights …
1. I didn't read the entire Bible until I was 32. Before that I read it like I do all fictional works, the start (what is the story about) and the ending (did the butler do it?). So Genesis and Revelations was pretty much it.
2. I wasn't strongly influenced by Christianity until I got married, when I was 30 ... my wife being Christian. Before that I was more indluenced by comparative religion studies (anthropology) and Zen Buddhism.
3. When my wife decided to go to seminary, to study to be a preacher, I knew I had to get more serious, to keep up. Though by that time I was already teaching Church history to adults in Church.
4. The seminaries my wife went to were liberal Protestant. Bishop Spong was an early influence for both of us, and later two of her professors were members of the Jesus Seminar. I ate that stuff up. But being of an independent mind, and my religious POV evolving constantly ...
5. My technical review of what the Jesus Seminar and other liberal historical Jesus scholars had done (read both pro and con) led me to my own independent conclusion different from the Jesus Seminar. They had decided in advance what their conclusion would be, and were testing the material in 5 gospels (Thomas included) against that hypothetical conclusion. This is a legitimate method of analysis, if done right. But I didn't have their agenda. I could review their results outside of the framework they did it in. Also I used the individual analysis of John Domnic Crossan, as a control (see empirical methods).
6. So I had to conclude that any historical actions by Jesus, aside from being symbolic of his supposed theology (acting out prophesy, like riding an ass into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday) was insignificant. For me, on the act of Jesus, the Gospel of John was primary, not the Gospel of Mark. Because we read the synoptics in the light of John. John's Gospel and Epistles being clearly gnostic based on the Song of Songs (of Solomon). A rabbinic theology of love, simliar to Rabbi Akiva, who notoriously supported the false messiah Bar Kochba.
7. I also concluded that the Greek original of Thomas, is the Q document. That the reasons given by scholarship for saying it wasn't the Q document, were specious (they were apologetics). The standard Q document ordering in based on the Gospel of Luke. A "sayings" gospel would not have the precise rhetorical structure we see in the sayings of Jesus as laid out in Luke. Luke is a more refined synoptic gospel, the last of the three (Mark being the first, then Matthew in reaction to Mark). The Gospel of Luke goes with the Acts of Paul, stylistically, and was written more refined and more Gentile, by Paul's community, in the light of 70 CE or even later. The Gospel of John is counted as the last, and the Gospel of Thomas counted as spurious, by a biased clergy.
8. Again, comparing Thomas, with John, and the genuine letter of Paul, it screams mythos and gnosis. That was the original form, not the narrative of Jesus ministry or childhood. The emphasis on the mystical Jesus came, per later evidence, come from Alexandria. The emphasis on the human Jesus, per later evidence, comes from Antioch. But the original inspiration comes from James the Just in Jerusalem. But that version died out in 135, when Jerusalem was destroyed a second time, and all Jews were permanently banned from the location of Aelia Capitolina (and they had to since the whole city and surroundings had been rendered unkosher).
9. We have Eusebius of Caesarea (and buddy of Constantine at the Nicea conference) remind us in his history, that at that point the Church became entirely Gentile. Because again, the Jewish Christians were banned from Aelia Capitlina, but Gentile Christians were not. And because again, the Jewish officials, tolerated only an approved messiah, Bar Kochba, and so savagely persecuted the Jewish Christians (Gentile Christians didn't even figure in Jerusalem at that time, because they weren't Pauline. BTW, John Dominc Crossans book on the importance of Paul, is a classic.
10. So all we have is a disordered set of aphorisms, wisdom literature comparable to Proverbs, written originally in Greek, by Hellenized Jews ... and the letter of Paul also in Greek. And the Bible at that point, for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike, was the Septuaginta (Greek OT with additions), There is nothing in all of that, or other Intertestamental literature, including other gnostic texts or Dead Sea scrolls and substantiates any historical Jesus, just the one or two antipated messiahs (an Aaronic messiah and a Davidic messiah).
Any educated member of the Therapeutae (as written about by Philo of Alexandria) could have written the Q document, or the other heterodox Jewish sect (there were several) who were part of the Hellenized Jewish community, which was extensive, until wiped out in the three Judeo-Roman wars of extermination ... in 66-74, 113-115 and 132-135 CE. And back then almost all written material was anonymous. It was later ascribed to real of fictional characters of antiquity. Only the most brazen authors, even pagans, put their name on written works. Julius Caesar, a megalomaniac, comes to mind ;-)
Basically, the 4 standard gospels, were written originall as sectarian Jewish polemic, 66-135 CE, and in the light of events, reinterpreted as anti-Semitic burlesque by the post 135 CE Pauline communities, which were totally Gentile and completely anti-Jewish and pro-Roman.
This is your best post in years!
My journey to atheism involves the Jesus Seminar as well. I went to two of their meetings in Santa Rosa, CA and had a grand time. My current wife was then searching for a new spiritual base (she was a life long Catholic but was shat upon by the local clergy and the chruch's rules in her personal life; I was also searching for spiritual meaning in my life, so we searched together). I started reading the bible in detail--front to back as part of that search. Became familiar with Bishop Spong and Karen Armstrong and read them. We began going to Unity (called a 'Truth' organization started in the late 1890's; founded by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore--loosely a progressive liberal christian movement.), and stayed with it for about 10 yrs. Ran across a web site about this time called 'Atheists for Jesus'. Read this guys stuff and read his book and liked what I read--led me to study the bible in more detail to determine what it was that Jesus actually said and did. I visited the two seminars at this time and picked up several books then as well--they dealt with what Jesus said, and the red-lettered study of the NT was especially interesting. The members of the Jesus Seminar used a voting method to determine what Jesus actually said. Black lettering was stuff he did not say; gray and pink were 'maybe' he said it; and red was stuff he for sure said. The red lettering was something like 5-10% of all that is credited to Jesus by traditional christianity. I delved more deeply into the red letter sayings of Jesus and the more I looked for proof that Jesus was actual and actually uttered these words, became more and more slippery. I then found and read Robert M. Price's book, 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', which was a search for the 'real' man, Jesus. Price found that the more closely he searched for the real man, the more he shrank until there was no man there at all. After several more books dealing with the 'real' Jesus, I am convinced that he is/was a fiction.
Baruch, I have read much of what you have on this subject, but I do not have anywhere near the command of that material and your knowledge is both broader and deeper. But I sort of echo your journey; and I did not become serious about the subject until my mid 40's.
Quote from: Jagella on May 29, 2019, 10:35:20 PM
Let's face it; reading is hard work, and considering that a printed Bible is over 1,000 pages long, few people have the time or inclination to learn its many strange stories, its boring poetry, its illogical laws, and its failed prophecies. It's so much easier, as you say, to be spoon-fed the "Bible" by the clergy. But of course it's really not the Bible they learn but what the preacher says it says. So when some upstart apostate like you or me comes along having read the Bible ourselves, we are greeted with incredulity by the faithful who are shocked when we tell them its true contents. We've got to be wrong--it's not what they've been told.
Yes, that's because we do what Luther Burbank suggested:
Quote from: Luther Burbank
Let us read the Bible without the ill-fitting colored spectacles of theology, just as we read other books, using our own judgement and reason, listening to the voice within, not to the noisy babel without. Most of us possess discriminating reasoning powers. Can we use them or must we be fed by others like babies?
Christians obviously don't really believe the Bible to be "The Word of God" or they'd be avid to soak up every bit of it with enthusiasm.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 30, 2019, 09:41:29 AM
This is your best post in years!
My journey to atheism involves the Jesus Seminar as well. I went to two of their meetings in Santa Rosa, CA and had a grand time. My current wife was then searching for a new spiritual base (she was a life long Catholic but was shat upon by the local clergy and the chruch's rules in her personal life; I was also searching for spiritual meaning in my life, so we searched together). I started reading the bible in detail--front to back as part of that search. Became familiar with Bishop Spong and Karen Armstrong and read them. We began going to Unity (called a 'Truth' organization started in the late 1890's; founded by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore--loosely a progressive liberal christian movement.), and stayed with it for about 10 yrs. Ran across a web site about this time called 'Atheists for Jesus'. Read this guys stuff and read his book and liked what I read--led me to study the bible in more detail to determine what it was that Jesus actually said and did. I visited the two seminars at this time and picked up several books then as well--they dealt with what Jesus said, and the red-lettered study of the NT was especially interesting. The members of the Jesus Seminar used a voting method to determine what Jesus actually said. Black lettering was stuff he did not say; gray and pink were 'maybe' he said it; and red was stuff he for sure said. The red lettering was something like 5-10% of all that is credited to Jesus by traditional christianity. I delved more deeply into the red letter sayings of Jesus and the more I looked for proof that Jesus was actual and actually uttered these words, became more and more slippery. I then found and read Robert M. Price's book, 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', which was a search for the 'real' man, Jesus. Price found that the more closely he searched for the real man, the more he shrank until there was no man there at all. After several more books dealing with the 'real' Jesus, I am convinced that he is/was a fiction.
Baruch, I have read much of what you have on this subject, but I do not have anywhere near the command of that material and your knowledge is both broader and deeper. But I sort of echo your journey; and I did not become serious about the subject until my mid 40's.
Karen Armstrong is excellent from a neutral perspective, but she tends toward the "there was no other choice in 300 CE" apologist for Catholicism. She at least takes Gnosticism seriously. Marcus Borg was good too.
And since that time, I have become a student of Hebrew and Greek, and read the originals. Well enough I can tell when a translator is stretching things too far. I have studied the other relevant Near Eastern languages as well … Ugaritic, Akkadian (Babylonian/Assyrian), Sumerian, Egyptian, Aramaic (biblical and Syriac). And studied two dialects of Arabic … MSA/Quran and Egyptian Arabic. If you look at a text in terms of language and anthropology, I find it thrilling to encounter the mind of someone who lived 2000-4000 years ago, in a way that clay pots can't provide. The etymology of important technical terms is … enlightening. Basically reconstructed meme history.
Right, because these assholes never call themselves "father" "mother" "sister" or "brother."
Oh, wait.....
Jesus is phony shit.
Quote from: Minimalist on May 30, 2019, 09:22:51 PM
Right, because these assholes never call themselves "father" "mother" "sister" or "brother."
Oh, wait.....
Jesus is phony shit.
English is a shitty language in general. And translating old languages into English, from an alien culture, leads to needless confusion. This is why Muslims say, the only Quran is the one in the original language, no translation is canonical.
Christoph_Luxenberg ( the pen name for an Arabic scholar who writes about the koran...and would be killed by the adherents of the religion of peace for doing so... maintains that the original language was Syriac.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg
Quote from: Minimalist on May 31, 2019, 01:30:38 AM
Christoph_Luxenberg ( the pen name for an Arabic scholar who writes about the koran...and would be killed by the adherents of the religion of peace for doing so... maintains that the original language was Syriac.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg
It was a hybrid language, and of course Muhammad didn't write it. He was illiterate. One of the early Caliphs had it written (in current form), because early on it was just "saying of Muhammad" like fortune cookies. Thus a hybrid document from hybrid dialects. Syriac would have been in there, as well as various N Arabic dialects. All of those are Semitic, it isn't like Syriac is Chinese.
On canonicity, to Muslims, it doesn't matter what dialect it is in, because they believe it came from Allah in Heaven, in Allah's own speech. If Allah sound a bit like Syriac (an Aramaic dialect I have studied) ... then no problem.
Quote from: SGOS on May 28, 2019, 05:41:59 PM
That one made me spew a mouthful of coffee on my monitor.
Well, logically-speaking, IF Jesus had a brother named James, THEN Jesus would exist.
So... Prove there was James brother of Jesus. That James brother was The Jesus of the Bible, which you can only do be proving the Biblical Jesus existed... Have fun with that...
And the James ossuary found in the last decade, is probably fake.
Yaakov brother of Yeshua.
It isn't "probably fake" - it is fake.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 31, 2019, 04:42:24 PM
It isn't "probably fake" - it is fake.
Prove it. And using Higgs field theory ;-}
The burden of proof is on those who make an extraordinary claim, such as that the bone box is not fake.
But of course it's fake, since Jesus never existed.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 31, 2019, 04:51:30 PM
The burden of proof is on those who make an extraordinary claim, such as that the bone box is not fake.
But of course it's fake, since Jesus never existed.
Do you claim that George Washington was the first President of the US? Instead of a coup leader in the Coup of 1775 and Coup of 1787?
Please if you agree that he was the first President, produce him so we can cross-examine him. I won't produce anyone from 2000 years ago, named Yeshua, but there must have been many of that name in Judea/Gaiiliee ... I bet you can't produce anyone from the 18th century either, named George or anything else.
Proof ... posh tosh. Nihilist ... there are no words, no meaning, no reality ... just uninteligible monkey chatter. In fact, no monkeys, just random clouds of atoms?? Prove that you are not just random atoms please.
I am not making any religious claim for Jesus. I don't even accept the historicity of the Gospels. But are you obsesed that it is true? Hence the defensiveness?
Actually, B, the National Archives has the electoral college results for presidential elections beginning in 1789. As the lawyers say, "the thing speaks for itself." They can also demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody.
You can always object in court but you'd have to convince the judge.
Quote from: Minimalist on June 01, 2019, 01:37:35 AM
Actually, B, the National Archives has the electoral college results for presidential elections beginning in 1789. As the lawyers say, "the thing speaks for itself." They can also demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody.
You can always object in court but you'd have to convince the judge.
Historians are liars, and judged can be bought. Please prove me wrong.
You didn't get my point … there can be no Presidents, because there is no USA, just rebellious colonies.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 31, 2019, 04:51:30 PM
The burden of proof is on those who make an extraordinary claim, such as that the bone box is not fake.
But of course it's fake, since Jesus never existed.
I'm not sure if Jesus never existed, but the evidence for Jesus is the same as the evidence for people who never existed.
:azn:
Quote from: Jagella on June 01, 2019, 01:29:47 PM
I'm not sure if Jesus never existed, but the evidence for Jesus is the same as the evidence for people who never existed.
Though I am sure I must have heard it put this way at sometime in the last 50 odd years, at this point I can't ever remember hearing that put that way. So hats off to you, good line. Now remember, I can't remember if I peed just now or am still thinking about it. :)
Quote from: aitm on June 01, 2019, 04:44:50 PM
Though I am sure I must have heard it put this way at sometime in the last 50 odd years, at this point I can't ever remember hearing that put that way. So hats off to you, good line. Now remember, I can't remember if I peed just now or am still thinking about it. :)
As an example of a figure who even Christians generally agree never existed, we have Zeus. Like Jesus, we have no solid evidence for Zeus at all. And Like Jesus, all we do have as evidence for Zeus are stories and testimonies written by different people. So what makes Zeus a myth and Jesus real I'm not sure, but Christian bias may have something to do with it.
Quote from: Baruch on May 31, 2019, 09:48:55 PM
But are you obsesed that it is true? Hence the defensiveness?
No, I fear theocracy, and showing that the tale is mythical is an attempt to forestall it.
Quote from: Baruch on May 31, 2019, 09:48:55 PM
Do you claim that George Washington was the first President of the US? Instead of a coup leader in the Coup of 1775 and Coup of 1787?
Please if you agree that he was the first President, produce him so we can cross-examine him. I won't produce anyone from 2000 years ago, named Yeshua, but there must have been many of that name in Judea/Gaiiliee ... I bet you can't produce anyone from the 18th century either, named George or anything else.
Proof ... posh tosh. Nihilist ... there are no words, no meaning, no reality ... just uninteligible monkey chatter. In fact, no monkeys, just random clouds of atoms?? Prove that you are not just random atoms please.
I am not making any religious claim for Jesus. I don't even accept the historicity of the Gospels. But are you obsesed that it is true? Hence the defensiveness?
Yeah, I think Flavius Josephus mentioned 7 people by the name of Yeshua. So what? That doesn't mean there was a Jesus of Nazareth, especially since there was no Nazareth until Constantine's mother decided to create one.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
Quote from: Jagella on June 01, 2019, 05:33:25 PM
As an example of a figure who even Christians generally agree never existed, we have Zeus. Like Jesus, we have no solid evidence for Zeus at all. And Like Jesus, all we do have as evidence for Zeus are stories and testimonies written by different people. So what makes Zeus a myth and Jesus real I'm not sure, but Christian bias may have something to do with it.
Early Christians did say Zeus existed .. as a demon to confuse the faithful. Jews originally said, all gods exist, but only worship our one god. Later Jews, polemically, said that only our god is real. In which case Christianity is just as false as paganism.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 01, 2019, 05:51:26 PM
No, I fear theocracy, and showing that the tale is mythical is an attempt to forestall it.
If so, fear the VP. Mammon worship isn't a theocracy. Myths (US founding myth) is very powerful, only because people believe it. I look forward to people no longer believing in the US fairy tale. All nations are founded on fairy tales. And the current non-theological fairy tale, will kill you … because 300 million Americans believe it, but not so many Dominionists.
1. Flavius Josephus was a traitor, apostate and liar
2. Only Christians copied his works, and they edited them (Same as NT).
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 06:29:34 PM
1. Flavius Josephus was a traitor, apostate and liar
Making him better or worse than the other traitors, apostates and liars?
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 02:04:54 AM
Historians are liars, and judged can be bought. Please prove me wrong.
You didn't get my point … there can be no Presidents, because there is no USA, just rebellious colonies.
We won. Fuck the Limeys.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 01, 2019, 06:04:11 PM
Yeah, I think Flavius Josephus mentioned 7 people by the name of Yeshua. So what? That doesn't mean there was a Jesus of Nazareth, especially since there was no Nazareth until Constantine's mother decided to create one.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
Far more than 7. I think the number was 22.
Quote from: aitm on June 01, 2019, 07:39:50 PM
Making him better or worse than the other traitors, apostates and liars?
Of course not. It is vitally necessary for people to be traitors, apostates and liars. And cannibals, necrophliacs etc. Morality is complete BS.
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 02:04:54 AM
Historians are liars, and judged can be bought. Please prove me wrong.
You didn't get my point … there can be no Presidents, because there is no USA, just rebellious colonies.
Example, all stories of WW II, prior to the revelation of Ultra, were BS. Including Churchill's multivolume history which won the Nobel Prize for Literature. And for all we know, the current narrative, updated with revelation of Ultra, is also BS.
Monkey pretensions to knowledge, let alone understanding, is ridiculous.
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 09:58:04 PM
Of course not. It is vitally necessary for people to be traitors, apostates and liars. And cannibals, necrophliacs etc. Morality is complete BS.
How about sex with a vampire? Would that make one a necrophile? Or a zombie...I suppose that definitely would.
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 06:26:46 PM
Early Christians did say Zeus existed .. as a demon to confuse the faithful.
Did the "consensus, the overwhelming majority" of Bible scholars of that era assure everybody that Zeus "almost certainly existed"? After all, they had multiple attestation for Zeus not to mention that much of the evidence for Zeus also passed the criterion of embarrassment with flying colors. Nobody would have made up stories of Zeus shamefully committing adultery all the time! Only the wackos on the fringe would have been so foolish as to think Zeus never existed. They weren't
qualified.
Quote from: Jagella on June 02, 2019, 08:54:32 PM
Did the "consensus, the overwhelming majority" of Bible scholars of that era assure everybody that Zeus "almost certainly existed"? After all, they had multiple attestation for Zeus not to mention that much of the evidence for Zeus also passed the criterion of embarrassment with flying colors. Nobody would have made up stories of Zeus shamefully committing adultery all the time! Only the wackos on the fringe would have been so foolish as to think Zeus never existed. They weren't qualified.
Ha, so which pre-Nicene Church Father are you?
There is nothing wrong with Zeus preferring human women, married or not. Have you ever been to bed with Hera?
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 02, 2019, 05:45:30 PM
How about sex with a vampire? Would that make one a necrophile? Or a zombie...I suppose that definitely would.
If an animal zombie, then bestiality too ;-}
Quote from: Baruch on June 02, 2019, 09:09:56 PM
Ha, so which pre-Nicene Church Father are you?
Jagella the Apostate
QuoteThere is nothing wrong with Zeus preferring human women, married or not. Have you ever been to bed with Hera?
Yes. It was surely a historical event. You know full well I never would make up such a shameful tale.
(https://news.xbox.com/en-us/wp-content/uploads/SMITE_XboxWire_Hera_Small-small.jpg)
Quote from: Jagella on June 02, 2019, 10:35:35 PM
Jagella the Apostate
Yes. It was surely a historical event. You know full well I never would make up such a shameful tale.
(https://news.xbox.com/en-us/wp-content/uploads/SMITE_XboxWire_Hera_Small-small.jpg)
That is the criteria the Jesus Seminar used. If Jesus said/did something embarrassing to Judaism, not orthodox/orthopraxis, then that was him. Notice this is an tendentious assumption.
People not only make up shameful things, they do them. I have.
From a modern historical point, even the question of the existence a historical Jesus is laughing matter.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2019, 07:28:33 AM
From a modern historical point, even the question of the existence a historical Jesus is laughing matter.
It is hard to prove, given his pervasive propaganda, who Augustus was.
Quote from: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 02:04:54 AM
Historians are liars, and judged can be bought. Please prove me wrong.
You didn't get my point … there can be no Presidents, because there is no USA, just rebellious colonies.
I love it when you post stupid... Cracks me up.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 01:59:10 AM
I love it when you post stupid... Cracks me up.
Shibboleths to the right of them, shibboleths to the left of them, onward posted the Internet glitterati!
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 05:49:36 AM
Shibboleths to the right of them, shibboleths to the left of them, onward posted the Internet glitterati!
Merriam Webster 1a definition ": a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning "
I'll agree with that.
I think a shibboleth is like a password.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 01:46:41 PM
I think a shibboleth is like a password.
So which door do you think it opens?
All words are magic talismans/charms. They are power, particularly the correct name for a thing. See Muad-dib.
Every word that humans use ... devoid of real meaning. See MikeCL and others here. They only use the dictionary as a rhetorical weapon, not because they believe in the dictionary, or understand it is a tool to be freely used for free thinking.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2019, 07:28:33 AM
From a modern historical point, even the question of the existence a historical Jesus is laughing matter.
Well, it should be a laughing matter. I've told real-Jesus apologists that they're trying to tell us that a magic man from the sky who became a flying zombie was historical. They had a hissy fit and called me names--seriously. As long as people insist on acting like fools religion will survive.
Quote from: Jagella on June 05, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
Well, it should be a laughing matter. I've told real-Jesus apologists that they're trying to tell us that a magic man from the sky who became a flying zombie was historical. They had a hissy fit and called me names--seriously. As long as people insist on acting like fools religion will survive.
The stories are symbolic, like George Washington not telling a lie to his father (about chopping down their cherry tree).
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:19:57 PM
So which door do you think it opens?
All words are magic talismans/charms. They are power, particularly the correct name for a thing. See Muad-dib.
Every word that humans use ... devoid of real meaning. See MikeCL and others here. They only use the dictionary as a rhetorical weapon, not because they believe in the dictionary, or understand it is a tool to be freely used for free thinking.
I sometimes check my good Merriam Webster dictionary when I suspect I'm using or misunderstanding a word inaccurately.
I do not consider word definitions a "rhetorical weapon". Rather, I consider them a way to examine slight differences in application and meaning. Without a common dictionary, we are just Babel.
And, BTW, I know 'Dune' quite well.
I disagree with you about words being "devoid of real meaning". In the sense of them being only series of symbols representing sounds, yes. But in the sense of them being expressions of thoughts that mean known things to other humans, no. Otherwise "theu hpehcfmg eh ths ijamn80qt 34hu9g" would mean as much or little as "liberty and justice for all".
Quote from: Jagella on June 05, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
Well, it should be a laughing matter. I've told real-Jesus apologists that they're trying to tell us that a magic man from the sky who became a flying zombie was historical. They had a hissy fit and called me names--seriously. As long as people insist on acting like fools religion will survive.
Can't agree with you more. I can understand that in pre-logic and pre-science societies, all sorts of bizarre things seemed possible. But when people think that way today, I am shocked.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 06, 2019, 01:53:50 AM
Can't agree with you more. I can understand that in pre-logic and pre-science societies, all sorts of bizarre things seemed possible. But when people think that way today, I am shocked.
This is why you hire an electrician ;-)
All words are code to be deciphered. "Cat" isn't a cat. You don't know what it means, except by reference to other words, or lived experience.
Quote from: Jagella on June 05, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
Well, it should be a laughing matter. I've told real-Jesus apologists that they're trying to tell us that a magic man from the sky who became a flying zombie was historical. They had a hissy fit and called me names--seriously. As long as people insist on acting like fools religion will survive.
They simply can't understand why we laugh at them! LOL
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 06, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
They simply can't understand why we laugh at them! LOL
True, people who don't know what they are talking about are fish in a barrel. But will you have chips too?
How 'bout if I just maintain a chipper attitude?
Look, Jesus could not have been born after Herod the Great died, in 4 BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#Death), and he could not have been born before the census of Quirinius, in 6 CE. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius), so he could not have been born at all.
Simple.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 07, 2019, 02:02:33 PM
Look, Jesus could not have been born after Herod the Great died, in 4 BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#Death), and he could not have been born before the census of Quirinius, in 6 CE. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius), so he could not have been born at all.
That's a good point. I wonder how real-Jesus apologists might explain away that contradiction. I think they might insist that just because we have no idea when Jesus was born, that doesn't mean he was never born at all! The total lack of good evidence just doesn't seem to faze the assumption that he was born and lived.
Quote from: Jagella on June 07, 2019, 10:42:07 PM
That's a good point. I wonder how real-Jesus apologists might explain away that contradiction. I think they might insist that just because we have no idea when Jesus was born, that doesn't mean he was never born at all! The total lack of good evidence just doesn't seem to faze the assumption that he was born and lived.
I used to puzzle about that. What I think the problem is that they have faith. Seems simple. But I think that ability to just believe and have faith means that, for them, facts and reason or critical thinking, just does not matter. They are told the best faith, the strongest faith (and faith is the path to salvation, brother!) is the best faith. And what is faith? To continue to believe even when it seems impossible to do so or to have faith despite facts. The theist cannot be swayed by facts--witness Baruch and Airk--since facts are likely to be of the devil or just plain unimportant.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 07, 2019, 11:17:58 PM
I used to puzzle about that. What I think the problem is that they have faith. Seems simple. But I think that ability to just believe and have faith means that, for them, facts and reason or critical thinking, just does not matter. They are told the best faith, the strongest faith (and faith is the path to salvation, brother!) is the best faith. And what is faith? To continue to believe even when it seems impossible to do so or to have faith despite facts. The theist cannot be swayed by facts--witness Baruch and Airk--since facts are likely to be of the devil or just plain unimportant.
Can't speak for Arik. For me, facts merely demonstrate what I say. We don't interpret the facts the same way.
There are occasions when faith (aka optimism) applies, tentatively. Reality has a way of neutralizing faith. But what I post here is based on experience not faith. Nobody would accuse me of being an idealist, let alone an optimist ... really?
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 05:14:57 AM
Can't speak for Arik. For me, facts merely demonstrate what I say. We don't interpret the facts the same way.
There are occasions when faith (aka optimism) applies, tentatively. Reality has a way of neutralizing faith. But what I post here is based on experience not faith. Nobody would accuse me of being an idealist, let alone an optimist ... really?
Actually, it is impossible to know what it is you really think about anything. You use snark to such an extent that it totally covers up any real, actual Baruch thoughts you may have. You almost seem afraid of exposing any real, actual thoughts you may have. But then, there is a real possibility that that is who and what you are--snark and pessimism. Throw in contrariness, and there you have it--snarky, pessimistic, contrary Baruch, the theist.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 08, 2019, 09:11:09 AM
Actually, it is impossible to know what it is you really think about anything. You use snark to such an extent that it totally covers up any real, actual Baruch thoughts you may have. You almost seem afraid of exposing any real, actual thoughts you may have. But then, there is a real possibility that that is who and what you are--snark and pessimism. Throw in contrariness, and there you have it--snarky, pessimistic, contrary Baruch, the theist.
See my latest post in the other string. We know each other, but you need reminding anyway.
The world is filled with hurt and hurting people. I can't blame people for being cynical or pessimistic given their condition.
Meanwhile, like everyone else, who know or don't know, I struggle to get thru one more day.
Are you really the don't worry, be happy guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 11:00:09 AM
See my latest post in the other string. We know each other, but you need reminding anyway.
The world is filled with hurt and hurting people. I can't blame people for being cynical or pessimistic given their condition.
Meanwhile, like everyone else, who know or don't know, I struggle to get thru one more day.
Are you really the don't worry, be happy guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
Yeah, I am much more of the 'don't worry, be happy' guy than the 'worry, worry, worry, oh woe is me' , guy. I chose to look for the up side of everything more than looking at all the shit that happens. I do realize and recognize that this world is full of suffering and pain. I do what I can--I know my limits and adhere to them. But I don't wallow in the pain and suffering, not even my own. Basically, I am grateful for the life I have had and the little I have left. I don't dwell on nor berate myself for all of the things I could have done, but didn't. I am basically content with me and mine.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 07, 2019, 11:17:58 PM
I used to puzzle about that. What I think the problem is that they have faith. Seems simple. But I think that ability to just believe and have faith means that, for them, facts and reason or critical thinking, just does not matter. They are told the best faith, the strongest faith (and faith is the path to salvation, brother!) is the best faith. And what is faith? To continue to believe even when it seems impossible to do so or to have faith despite facts. The theist cannot be swayed by facts--witness Baruch and Airk--since facts are likely to be of the devil or just plain unimportant.
Isn't it strange that while God doesn't want us to use our brains the Devil does want us to use our brains?
In any event, faith is essential for believing what there are no good reasons to believe. I think such faith is evident among those who want to believe in a historical Jesus.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 07, 2019, 11:17:58 PM
I used to puzzle about that. What I think the problem is that they have faith. Seems simple. But I think that ability to just believe and have faith means that, for them, facts and reason or critical thinking, just does not matter. They are told the best faith, the strongest faith (and faith is the path to salvation, brother!) is the best faith. And what is faith? To continue to believe even when it seems impossible to do so or to have faith despite facts. The theist cannot be swayed by facts--witness Baruch and Airk--since facts are likely to be of the devil or just plain unimportant.
Yeah,
You Cannot Reason People Out of Something They Were Not Reasoned Into (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/10/reason-out/).
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 08, 2019, 01:22:34 PM
Yeah, You Cannot Reason People Out of Something They Were Not Reasoned Into (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/10/reason-out/).
Verily, I say unto you.............................
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein
The quote about reason, is attributed to Jonathan Swift. Are Gulliver's Travels reasonable to you?
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 05:10:36 PM
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein
and currently the only one that has some seemingly real proof to it.
Quote from: aitm on June 08, 2019, 05:35:16 PM
and currently the only one that has some seemingly real proof to it.
Huh? Yes ... I am a genius (said by every poster every time).
Quote from: Baruch on June 06, 2019, 11:50:55 AM
This is why you hire an electrician ;-)
All words are code to be deciphered. "Cat" isn't a cat. You don't know what it means, except by reference to other words, or lived experience.
Yeah, yeah, "the map is not the territory, the picture of a can of soup is not a can of soup", etc. But try to convince a cat it isn't a cat... Good luck on THAT one.
By your logic about words as symbols " noy abll gxat FREM" is a devestating rebuttal to your 00%72, XIN#
That last was the most intelligible thing you have posted in months ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on June 09, 2019, 01:56:10 PM
That last was the most intelligible thing you have posted in months ;-)
And that's saying a lot, since Cavebear generally posts very intelligent comments. More so, at least, than...others I'll refrain from mentioning...
Quote from: Baruch on June 09, 2019, 01:56:10 PM
That last was the most intelligible thing you have posted in months ;-)
Thank you, I think...