Andrew Anderson: The explorer Thor Heyerdahl experimented with rafting as a means of seafaring travel, and wrote books describing his adventures.

The first of his popular books was, I believe, KON TIKI.

His theory re: Easter Island is that some people from South America decided to raft out upon the Pacific Ocean and drifted over to Easter Island. Some of the Islanders have European features, among them white skin and red hair, which Heyerdahl, if I remember correctly, believes are descendants of European settlers of South America, particularly Norwegians.

I do not recall the name of Heyerdahl's Easter Island book, but a net search should bring it up.

He describes the history of the Islanders, and how their culture was passed on. The leader of the Islanders is called The Mayor, and Mayors passed cultural information down through their sons.

The Mayor "in office" during Heyerdahl's explorations showed where the statues were quarried, how they were carved, and how they were moved. Heyerdahl hired natives to move either a statue or a large stone block to verify how the statues could have been moved.

PBS quite often has videos showing modern explorers trying to reproduce native methods of moving and setting up various statues, obeliskes, Roman baths, etc., and a video on Easter Island is presented from time to time and may be commercially available.

Regards,
Bob K.

CLB:

I agree completely with your assessment that Xnity was fabricated out of pagan savior-god myths (virgin births, miracles, problems with authorities, execution/sacrifice, resurrections, etc.)

CHRISTIANITY BEFORE CHRIST, by John G. Jackson, American Atheist Press, should be available at http://www.atheists.org It gives information concerning pagan myths and the origins of Xn myths. It also contains a rather startling statement that St. Augustine commented upon the pagan origins of Xnity.

I also agree that the idea of a god sacrificing himself to himself to save humanity from himself is absurd.

I notice that Xns run from tough questions, one of which is this: If you were a god, would you require humans to make flesh/blood offerings/sacrifices? If so, why?

Another question which causes Xns extreme distress is this: What are you standards for identifying gods? And what are your standards for distinguishing gods from demons? (See my answer at www.bobkwebsite.com )

Another ferocious question: Where are the gods today?

And if one of your standards for proof is physical evidence, meaning for you to believe in gods you would have to see/hear/touch/smell/taste a god, then you are justified in shouting at theists the following: Show me the gods!!!

Without standards, how would we know a god was a god if ever one actually existed and showed up and announced he/she/it was a god?

Without standards, anything goes, as witness the Xn insanity you have pointed out, which would make sense only if gods actually existed and were insane.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited May 27, 2001).]

Ah, muchos gracios to BobK and CLB for providing the pertinent information. (Thanks also, Bob, for the e-mail in case I would miss the post--I'll send a personal reply too.) I'll take into account the above info and be sure to bookmark CLB's link on Easter Island. This should be an interesting objection against Christianity to research.

Good day to all.

Andrew

[This message has been edited by Andrew Anderson (edited May 27, 2001).]

By your definition, I must equally qualify as a complete idiot. (That doesn't need a smart comment btw) After all I believe in "miracles", "Messiahs" and I "buy their ridiculous [Gospel] stories".
So you're proved that I am equally intelligent as they were... or conversely, that they were as intelligent as me. In that case I can quite happily believe everything they wrote.

Any chance of you giving a few examples of those "tons" of teachings? I am surprised that you can say that my interpretation is "quite dubious": your original interpretation hardly shows great knowledge of biblical doctrines and interpretations.

Hmmm, I thought you were arguing the opposite position before. Are you changing positions on me to be annoying or did I just misjudge your position before?
Anyway, Pilate initial refusal I do not see as inherently implausible. He was after all the Roman governer. While he would have agreed to the Priest's demands if he feared a riot, under any normal circumstances he would be in control.

[snip a bit]

"(nobody disputes this)"!!!
Pull the other one...

Say I wanted to spread a religion which holds love for others, truth, good deeds etc as its key components. Would I then proceed to make up a whole lot of lies and untruth and found my religion on that?
"By being a Christian, you assume that all non-Christian religions make up lies about their miracles,"
BTW, I don't assume this at all. I believe that it is possible for miracles to happen. I believe they happened in the case of Christianity. I'm quite happy also to allow them to occur outside Christianity at least occasionally without it worrying me.
I find nothing wrong with Pilate washing his hands. I assume that your objection is the usual "It was a Jewish custom so Pilate wouldn't have done it". I'll consider this a valid point when someone shows me a Roman law stating "Prefects shall hereby not use local customs in order to be understood clearly by the people they are governing".

Easter Is:

With regard to polishing: I'm not sure I understand. Clearly the statues are polished or carved smoothly or whatever. You said that shifting them on logs would scratch them and they wouldn't be able to be polished again once in place because of the lack of modern polishing equiptment. But aren't you ignoring the fact that they were polished somehow when first constructed?

You really want your "Easter Is statues must be Gods too" analogy taken seriously? Fine. Shall we do a quick piece of semi-formal logic on it?
1) No race is stupid enough to kill themselves.
2) Therefore the Easter Islander's wouldn't have cut down all their trees.
3) Since the Easter Islanders didn't cut down their trees, they couldn't have moved the statues to their current positions by logs.
4) Thus without a plausible explanation, we are left with the possibility that the myth among the Islanders that the statues moved themselves to their current positions is correct.

Have I correctly stated your argument? (I wouldn't want to attack it and have you claim it's a straw man)

Tercel: [snip]...Say I wanted to spread a religion which holds love for others, truth, good deeds etc as its key components.

Have you read the narratives carefully? For example, please point out where in "Mark," the earliest narrative, that Jesus "wanted to spread a religion which holds love for others, truth, good deeds etc as its key components."

The fact is, Jesus uses the word "love [Greek=agapao]" a grand total of four times in the whole Marcan narrative and in one of those instances, he uses it in a negative way.

Jesus's message was not about love. He felt compelled to announce the imminent End of the known world and the coming of the son of man to judge "sinners." He believed all this would take place during the lifetime of his audience. All one has to do is read the narrative to see this.

Tercel: Would I then proceed to make up a whole lot of lies and untruth and found my religion on that?

Zealots say and do many things to further their cause. When they make up things, they don't necessarily consider it lying.

rodahi

Yes.
This is your opinion.
Personally I do not believe in the two source hypothesis.

You're good at this Rodahi: specifically asking questions that you know don't have answers.
I don't recall mentioning Mark, perhaps you could point out where I mentioned it?

Despite having a tiny knowledge of Greek, I seem to recall that there are multiple Greek words that translate "love".

I'm read the narratives and I do not see this. I do not see how you can expect your somewhat extreme atheistic opinion of Jesus to be shared by the general world.
Perhaps you should have a look at what fraction of the narratives Jesus spends talking about apocalyptical judgement and compare this to the amount spent telling people to love God, their neighbours and do good to all.

Yes. They do many things to further their cause. If that is love and truth then they'll do what they can to further love and truth. I fail to see how this would include lies or untruths.

The others are 'philos' -love of a friend or friendship; and 'eros' -attraction or sexual love. You and rodahi can look and see whether they appear in Mark and the other gospels or not if you want to.

I don't want to insult you, so I'm not going to say that. I also do not think it to be true, since you were probably raised in and and around Christianity, therefore your belief in its absurdities is more brainwashing than an irrational conclusion based on one's free will.

He told people to sell all their posessions and give the money to the poor; to hate their families; to refrain from attempting to prosecute theives; etc. These are a few of the examples.
And if he was in control then he would almost certainly have killed Jesus, since evidence indicates he was one of the most cruel Roman rulers at that time.

[snip a bit]

"(nobody disputes this)"!!!
Pull the other one...[/quote]
What else would you call a (for all practical intents and purposes) pre-Christian society that so highly valued Greek writing style? A Greek society i.e. a pagan-oriented one.

Actually, for most of history Christianity has valued wholesale slaughter or at least strong supression of all who oppose it, and I think the Young Earth Creationist movement in and of itself is proof that many Christians care little about the truth.
And I suppose the catch is that all non-Christian miracles are the work of Satan?
My problem is not with Pilate's literal washing of his hands, but with the Gospel's report of his refusal to kill or even seriously punish Jesus, which, given the independent evidence about Pilate and the cruelty of the Roman Empire's laws in general, would be quite unlikely.

Actually no, they are not polished to a great degree - they have a somewhat jagged surface. Furthermore the remaining smoothness is mostly due to hundreds of years of erosion (which BTW also probably eliminated detailed features on the statues such as different color areas that were painted on there).
Yes, you have correctly stated my argument. Bear in mind, though, that of course I do not actually believe the statues got to their present locations due to any supernatural means, I am simply attempting to show that the "evidence" for them doing so is better than that for Christ's alleged miracles and resurrection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: [snip]...Say I wanted to spread a religion which holds love for others, truth, good deeds etc as its key components.
Rodahi:Have you read the narratives carefully?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: Yes.

When? You don't seem to be familiar with "Mark."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, please point out where in "Mark," the earliest narrative,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: This is your opinion.
Personally I do not believe in the two source hypothesis.

This is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of virtually all critical scholars. Only a few conservative fundamentalists agree with you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, please point out where in "Mark"... that Jesus "wanted to spread a religion which holds love for others, truth, good deeds etc as its key components."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: You're good at this Rodahi: specifically asking questions that you know don't have answers.

It is a valid question, considering your comment. Anyone who has read "Mark" knows that what you said is just plain false.

Tercel: I don't recall mentioning Mark, perhaps you could point out where I mentioned it?

The narrative attributed to a person named Mark may contain the oldest and most historical tradition in the NT. Are you attempting to distance yourself from it because you don't feel comfortable with what the writer says? Does it not fit well with your presuppositions?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is, Jesus uses the word "love [Greek=agapao]" a grand total of four times in the whole Marcan narrative and in one of those instances, he uses it in a negative way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: Despite having a tiny knowledge of Greek, I seem to recall that there are multiple Greek words that translate "love".

The only places where Jesus mentions "love" in "Mark" are 10:21KJV (Jesus looked upon a young male and "loved" him) and 12:30-33KJV (Jesus said to love Yahweh and neighbors). That isn't much love in a narrative that is 16 chapters long.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus's message was not about love. He felt compelled to announce the imminent End of the known world and the coming of the son of man to judge "sinners." He believed all this would take place during the lifetime of his audience. All one has to do is read the narrative to see this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: I'm read the narratives and I do not see this. I do not see how you can expect your somewhat extreme atheistic opinion of Jesus to be shared by the general world.

Many Christian scholars have seen the same thing I have seen, Tercel. (You might try reading something besides conservative, fundamentalist literature.) I ask any intelligent reader to read and see for himself or herself what "Mark" actually says.

Tercel: Perhaps you should have a look at what fraction of the narratives Jesus spends talking about apocalyptical judgement and compare this to the amount spent telling people to love God, their neighbours and do good to all.

That is precisely what I have done with the oldest narrative. In "Mark," Jesus uses about three sentences to say everything he had to say about love of Yahweh and neighbors. Contrast that with the amount of words Jesus spent speaking of the imminent coming of the End: 1:14-15; 8:38; 9:1; 10:29-30; 13:1-36; 14:62.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tercel: Would I then proceed to make up a whole lot of lies and untruth and found my religion on that?
Rodahi: Zealots say and do many things to further their cause. When they make up things, they don't necessarily consider it lying.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: Yes. They do many things to further their cause. If that is love and truth then they'll do what they can to further love and truth. I fail to see how this would include lies or untruths.

1. Christian zealots believe/d in the credo "the end justifies the means."
2. You have misunderstood what Jesus said in the oldest narrative.

rodahi


[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 30, 2001).]

Unfortunately or possibly fortunately, I was raised in and around Christianity. "Unfortunately", because it allows the accusation of "brainwashing" which I don't like because it is neither provable nor disprovable. "Fortunately", because I'm glad I was.

But what you don't seem to understand is that there have been a huge number of rational, intelligent people over the years that have been raised in non-christian homes, had little contact with Christianity in their early life and yet later become Christians. At the very least this demonstrates that Christianity is plausible and you certainly don't have to be stupid or brainwashed to believe it.
I agree that for many fundamentalists or young earth creationists "brainwashed" is probably a fairly appropriate word. (I'm guessing your annoyance against Christianity is aimed mainly in their direction) By all means, continue to disagree with them. But I would remind you not to generalise their beliefs to all Christians.

[snip quite a lot which I don't really want to argue further]

No catch. I could sometimes be Satan I suppose. It could sometimes be God too.

[snip a bit more]

You have spent a large amount of time in this thread proving to me that:
*) The Easter Islanders killed themselves by cutting down all their trees.
Thus your argument's very first premise fails:
1) No race is stupid enough to kill themselves.

My major concern about your argument is this: it does not even stand up to the most simple logic. The argument for the resurrection does (True, you can deny some of the premises, but you cannot outrightly prove the falsity of any part), so the analogy is false.