Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 06-02-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Here we can see, very clearly, the task at hand. AdamWho has confounded "myth" with "legend", and to the extent that other forum members engage in the same process, we cannot achieve clarity in explaining the origin and development of Christianity, in my opinion.

"'the Washington of the cherry tree account' is mythological, ..."

NO.

It is legendary, not mythological. The distinction is critical. Legends, but not myths, are potentially historically verifiable, generally exaggerated, physically possible tall tales. Myths are IMPOSSIBLE. Myths are supernatural...

Precision in language is certainly important. But the distinction made here is not one that would normally be made in good English. Is this statement of usage your own? If not, where does it come from.

I should add that I have concerns here about this argument. No doubt one can redefine language in order to label the Christian story a myth. But we all know that the word "myth" means only "something not true" in modern English. It looks very much to me as if the purpose of this argument is to get people to accept that Christianity is a "myth", by playing a game with the meaning of the word "myth", in the knowledge that most people will still use the word in the usual sense of "something not true".

The good old fashioned English term for this kind of argument is "deception". It's dishonest argumentation, nothing more.

Christianity may or may not be true, and I certainly wouldn't want to argue that question here. But ... if this is the best argument that it is not true, if the best arguments against it are just tricky games with word-definitions, then the game is over. If that's the best argument, then we should all accept that Christianity is true, that we really believe that it is true but inconvenient, and repent, confess, prepare for death, and in general take it on the chin.

Because no-one who really had any evidence whatever for their position would be driven to that desperate, dishonest kind and genre of argument.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

tanya · 06-02-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Precision in language is certainly important.

Thanks, for your rejoinder, and for the time to explore alternatives to the overly facile interpretation I offer.

For whatever value it may have, spin shares your dismay with my distinction between myth and legend. Most others on the forum simply ignore the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But the distinction made here is not one that would normally be made in good English.

In other words, you dispute the definition I have offered, whereby a LEGEND, but not a myth, is an unaffirmed hyperbolic statement of potential historical validity, whereas,

a MYTH represents any concept, idea, locale, or person possessing, demonstrating, or assuming supernatural attributes.

I appreciate your input, Roger: I admire both your own website, and your often demonstrated, considerable talent, in expression on this forum, using our mutual language, English. I perceive your own contributions here, as among the very best in genre, though I confess to having a distinctly different philosophical point of view. What I admire most about your submissions to the forum, is not simply the eloquence, however, nor just the logic of your submissions. I admire the fact that you express yourself, openly, honestly, and generally, with links to valuable resources to further explain your point of view. In short, while I perceive, in perusing this rejoinder, that you are dissatisfied with my position, I do not receive this rebuke with hostility, but with gratitude. thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is this statement of usage your own? ...

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I should add that I have concerns here about this argument. No doubt one can redefine language in order to label the Christian story a myth.

I believe that you are in error, here, Roger.

Let me attempt to get you on the right track: Forget, for the moment, about Christianity. The definition I have provided, clarifies why Islam is mythical: there is no such creature as "al Buraq". Mohammed neither rode such a creature, nor conversed in heaven with god, before returning to Mecca, from Jerusalem, riding on the back of al-Buraq....

The clear cut distinction, I offer, is between possible in nature, and impossible in nature: fictional accounts which are possible, are clearly LEGENDARY, while fictional accounts which are impossible, are MYTHICAL.

It is really an extraordinarily simple concept, which then immediately clarifies all events portrayed in any text, as describing legends, or myths.

Suggestions that one can fly to a distant galaxy, and return the following day, are myths. Flying to a distant country, with return the following day, could well be a legend, or a fact, but need not be a myth, unless the qualifier were added, that the method of transport, was electron transport via supercharged ion gun, using a plastic umbrella as a receiver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But we all know that the word "myth" means only "something not true" in modern English. It looks very much to me as if the purpose of this argument is to get people to accept that Christianity is a "myth", by playing a game with the meaning of the word "myth", in the knowledge that most people will still use the word in the usual sense of "something not true".

"not true" is inadequate, Roger. Myths are both UNTRUE, AND, physically impossible in the realm of science. Legends are typically, exaggerations. Paul Bunyan is a myth, for humans don't grow 20 feet tall, nor cavort with giant blue oxen. Some French logger, back in the 18th century, in Quebec, with a name sounding a bit like Bunyan, who may have been a bit taller than average, could have served as model for the myth. That real person, would have been involved with LEGENDARY accomplishments, "he cut down four trees in one hour, by himself" Real people cut trees, using saws and axes, they do not require divine intervention or supernatural oxen, to accomplish this task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The good old fashioned English term for this kind of argument is "deception". It's dishonest argumentation, nothing more.

There is nothing intentionally deceptive about my post. I am laying it out there, in black and white:

LEGEND: potentially historical, unacknowledged, unconfirmed hyperbole;

MYTH: impossible: defies the laws of physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Christianity may or may not be true, and I certainly wouldn't want to argue that question here. But ... if this is the best argument that it is not true, if the best arguments against it are just tricky games with word-definitions, then the game is over. If that's the best argument, then we should all accept that Christianity is true, that we really believe that it is true but inconvenient, and repent, confess, prepare for death, and in general take it on the chin.

If you return to my comment, you will note that I corrected not only the statement relating to Christianity, but also to a baseball player using steroids, and a Mormon creating the sacred book, important to all who believe in that doctrine. The definitions of MYTH, versus LEGEND, provided, in other words, are applicable across the whole of human civilization, and independent of language. The two definitions offered, rest on conformance or not, with science, rather than history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Because no-one who really had any evidence whatever for their position would be driven to that desperate, dishonest kind and genre of argument.

I don't feel desperate. I hope my presentation has not been dishonest.

All the best,

Roger Pearse · 06-02-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

In other words, you dispute the definition I have offered, whereby

a LEGEND, but not a myth, is an unaffirmed hyperbolic statement of potential historical validity, whereas,

a MYTH represents any concept, idea, locale, or person possessing, demonstrating, or assuming supernatural attributes.

I appreciate your input, Roger ... In short, while I perceive, in perusing this rejoinder, that you are dissatisfied with my position, I do not receive this rebuke with hostility, but with gratitude. thank you.

I appreciate the way in which you took my response.

I didn't feel that you addressed my concern. Rather I think that perhaps you believed that I had not understood your proposal of how these words should be used, and explained it further?

But your original explanation was perfectly clear. I regret that my objection to the proposal was not so evident. Too late in the evening now to have another go. But ... believe me, you will not succeed in using tweaks to word definitions to achieve the purpose you have in mind. That's not the right way to address the issue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Kapyong · 06-02-2012, 03:30 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

If Jesus was completely fictional, the accounts of him would be more consistent ... that's a literary argument, but a good one.

Not so.

Consider how inconsistent the Greek myths are.

How about Pandora's box (jar) -
one version has it filled with all good things
another version has it filled with bad things.

If this was a myth, the stories would be consistent.

So obviously this was a true account, the inconsistencies show that a true story was combined with a legend.

K.

anethema · 06-02-2012, 03:52 PM

It is imo a case of cultural "blinders", I called it Borgian implants in a previous post. The cultural divide between East and West is a poignant analogy. People cannot get beyond their ingrained pre-suppositions enough to have a rational discussion. Although it is still fun to argue with intelligent people whenever possible.

J-D · 06-02-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Precision in language is certainly important.

Thanks, for your rejoinder, and for the time to explore alternatives to the overly facile interpretation I offer.

For whatever value it may have, spin shares your dismay with my distinction between myth and legend. Most others on the forum simply ignore the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But the distinction made here is not one that would normally be made in good English.

In other words, you dispute the definition I have offered, whereby a LEGEND, but not a myth, is an unaffirmed hyperbolic statement of potential historical validity, whereas,

a MYTH represents any concept, idea, locale, or person possessing, demonstrating, or assuming supernatural attributes.

I appreciate your input, Roger: I admire both your own website, and your often demonstrated, considerable talent, in expression on this forum, using our mutual language, English. I perceive your own contributions here, as among the very best in genre, though I confess to having a distinctly different philosophical point of view. What I admire most about your submissions to the forum, is not simply the eloquence, however, nor just the logic of your submissions. I admire the fact that you express yourself, openly, honestly, and generally, with links to valuable resources to further explain your point of view. In short, while I perceive, in perusing this rejoinder, that you are dissatisfied with my position, I do not receive this rebuke with hostility, but with gratitude. thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is this statement of usage your own? ...

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I should add that I have concerns here about this argument. No doubt one can redefine language in order to label the Christian story a myth.

I believe that you are in error, here, Roger.

Let me attempt to get you on the right track: Forget, for the moment, about Christianity. The definition I have provided, clarifies why Islam is mythical: there is no such creature as "al Buraq". Mohammed neither rode such a creature, nor conversed in heaven with god, before returning to Mecca, from Jerusalem, riding on the back of al-Buraq....

The clear cut distinction, I offer, is between possible in nature, and impossible in nature: fictional accounts which are possible, are clearly LEGENDARY, while fictional accounts which are impossible, are MYTHICAL.

It is really an extraordinarily simple concept, which then immediately clarifies all events portrayed in any text, as describing legends, or myths.

Suggestions that one can fly to a distant galaxy, and return the following day, are myths. Flying to a distant country, with return the following day, could well be a legend, or a fact, but need not be a myth, unless the qualifier were added, that the method of transport, was electron transport via supercharged ion gun, using a plastic umbrella as a receiver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But we all know that the word "myth" means only "something not true" in modern English. It looks very much to me as if the purpose of this argument is to get people to accept that Christianity is a "myth", by playing a game with the meaning of the word "myth", in the knowledge that most people will still use the word in the usual sense of "something not true".

"not true" is inadequate, Roger. Myths are both UNTRUE, AND, physically impossible in the realm of science. Legends are typically, exaggerations. Paul Bunyan is a myth, for humans don't grow 20 feet tall, nor cavort with giant blue oxen. Some French logger, back in the 18th century, in Quebec, with a name sounding a bit like Bunyan, who may have been a bit taller than average, could have served as model for the myth. That real person, would have been involved with LEGENDARY accomplishments, "he cut down four trees in one hour, by himself" Real people cut trees, using saws and axes, they do not require divine intervention or supernatural oxen, to accomplish this task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The good old fashioned English term for this kind of argument is "deception". It's dishonest argumentation, nothing more.

There is nothing intentionally deceptive about my post. I am laying it out there, in black and white:

LEGEND: potentially historical, unacknowledged, unconfirmed hyperbole;

MYTH: impossible: defies the laws of physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Christianity may or may not be true, and I certainly wouldn't want to argue that question here. But ... if this is the best argument that it is not true, if the best arguments against it are just tricky games with word-definitions, then the game is over. If that's the best argument, then we should all accept that Christianity is true, that we really believe that it is true but inconvenient, and repent, confess, prepare for death, and in general take it on the chin.

If you return to my comment, you will note that I corrected not only the statement relating to Christianity, but also to a baseball player using steroids, and a Mormon creating the sacred book, important to all who believe in that doctrine. The definitions of MYTH, versus LEGEND, provided, in other words, are applicable across the whole of human civilization, and independent of language. The two definitions offered, rest on conformance or not, with science, rather than history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Because no-one who really had any evidence whatever for their position would be driven to that desperate, dishonest kind and genre of argument.

I don't feel desperate. I hope my presentation has not been dishonest.

All the best,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Someone who thinks more carefully than Toto, that is to say a nonmyther, would have titled the thread "Why one person can't give up on a historical Jesus". To extrapolate from that one person to people in general is just the kind of sloppy thinking one expects of mythers.

Thank you Toto, for the link to John Adams newest composition. I agree with aa5874's comment, and find it well written, as usual, notwithstanding Mandelbrot's juvenile reply. Does he even understand set theory, let alone the famous' mathematician's contribution to fractal geometry? I am dumbfounded.

At the risk of alienating J-D and spin, I think I will ignore their meaningless exchange.

I wish to make two points.

a. John Adams is a well known composer. I am not sure how many folks on this forum have listened to his other operas, but, he is one of the two or three most famous contemporary composers of USA. His opera, Nixon in China, is rather easy to listen to, composed about thirty years ago, and, at the time it first appeared, relatively provocative, as the "Chinese cultural revolution" had been universally condemned in western media.

I observe a similar pattern here, i.e. Adams' desire to provide a musical challenge to conventional thinking. Folks on this forum are accustomed to using text to challenge prevailing views. You need not take my word for it, but, the creative task, awaiting those who seek to challenge status quo, via music, is far more difficult, than absorbing, and then challenging, a written text, even in a foreign language.....

b. If Adams has his work cut our for him, trying to persuade those accustomed to "rock" or "pop" music, to listen to his opera, so too, do we have a challenge, here on this forum, trying our best to improve our posts, not only to satisfy the J-D's and spin's of this forum, but also to achieve self recognition of gradual change in perspective, one hopes, leading to some new accomplishment. We are not all so skillful as John Adams.....

Spin challenged me, elsewhere, months ago, about my definition of "myth". Though I have not made any great improvement in my understanding, particularly, in terms of his definition, I have begun to appreciate that there has been a change in my stance on this point, and for that, I should thank this forum, including spin.

Here's the post on this thread that caught my attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

You know... if the biblical accounts where not meant as historical, then they are by default fictional/mythical.

We even have mythical accounts of more recent public figures such as Washington and the cherry tree. If these were the only accounts of George Washington, we would be justified in saying 'the Washington of the cherry tree account' is mythological, regardless if somebody named George Washington ever existed.

Like wise the gospel accounts are clearly fictional. No matter if a real Jesus existed, the 'Jesus of the gospels' is in fact mythological. This is true completely independent of whether there was a man named Jesus.

The same can be said for other figures that existed. The Julius Caesar who was born of a virgin is a myth, the Joseph Smith who was dictated the book of Moron is a myth, the Barry Bonds who didn't take steroids is a myth.

Here we can see, very clearly, the task at hand. AdamWho has confounded "myth" with "legend", and to the extent that other forum members engage in the same process, we cannot achieve clarity in explaining the origin and development of Christianity, in my opinion.

"'the Washington of the cherry tree account' is mythological, ..."

NO.

It is legendary, not mythological. The distinction is critical. Legends, but not myths, are potentially historically verifiable, generally exaggerated, physically possible tall tales. Myths are IMPOSSIBLE. Myths are supernatural, or invoke supernatural qualities. There is nothing about the legend of G.Wash. and the cherry tree that requires divine intervention.

"The Julius Caesar who was born of a virgin is a myth,..."

No, it is a legend.

Virginity in females is defined simply as possessing an intact hymen. The small orifice allowing outflow of menstrual flow, is large enough for sperm to find their way inbounds. There is no need to invoke divine intervention here, hence this is a legend, not a myth.

"...the Joseph Smith who was dictated the book of Moron is a myth,..." Not so. That the book of Mormon was created, or transported, by an Angel, named Moroni, is a legend. I am 100% confident that the book of Mormon was created by humans, not some kind of supernatural deity. Humans are fully capable of accomplishing the activities described.

There is no need for supernatural deities to make gold plates, or write texts.

"....the Barry Bonds who didn't take steroids is a myth."

Nope. Legend. Nothing about administration of any extant drug requires intervention of a supernatural power. This is a clear example, of misunderstanding the distinction between legend and myth.

Here's a couple of myths, not legends: Jesus waved his hands, and the little girl's epilepsy was healed. Jesus spit in the enucleated soldier's face, and his sight was restored. Neither of these activities are physically possible. Hence, both activities represent supernatural descriptions, i.e. myths.

Setting to one side for the time being the terminological issue, I agree that there is a distinction between statements which describe events which are physically impossible and statements which may be false but which do not entail physical impossibilities.

However, one of your examples puzzles me, because you appear to be saying that a statement which describes an angel as creating or transporting something does not entail any physical impossibility. Do you regard statements about angels as falling within the bounds of what's physically possible?

Joan of Bark · 06-02-2012, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

If Jesus was completely fictional, the accounts of him would be more consistent ... that's a literary argument, but a good one.

Not so.

Consider how inconsistent the Greek myths are.

How about Pandora's box (jar) -
one version has it filled with all good things
another version has it filled with bad things.

If this was a myth, the stories would be consistent.

So obviously this was a true account, the inconsistencies show that a true story was combined with a legend.

K.

First of all, where did you get the story that Pandora's Box was filled with all good things? I'm familiar with Greek myths, and I've never seen that story.

Secondly, I did not say or imply that inconsistencies show that a story must be true; I claimed that consistency indicates that a story is more likely to be false. And I should qualify all this by saying that this is hardly an absolute (such things don't exist when we're talking about the social sciences).

Besides, the Jesus story is not a myth, in the sense of a story told that explains origins, but as a true account of events witnessed by many human beings.

Will Wiley · 06-02-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm a little at a loss here. Perhaps if I try to introduce the idea as I see it, you might be able to get a better aim on it when using the notions that Williams supplies.

How do people who consent to the existence of a historical jesus "agree to be dominated"?

J-D · 06-02-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

<snip>Pointing out errors is the least you can do if you want to be helpful. Disputants frequently point out errors and there is no constructive intent. And I find your reaction to my use of "constructive" to be hard to fathom. Pointing out errors per se is pulling the rug out from under something. Then what do you do?

If you are asking 'what should somebody who has pointed out an error do next?', then my answer is that somebody who has pointed out an error is under no general automatic obligation to follow that up in any particular way.

Of course not, but by the same token you are under no obligation to point out errors in the first place, especially if you are not prepared to go beyond pointing out the errors. Pointing out errors can be throwing stones at someone's windows.

I don't point out errors because I'm obligated to, I point out errors because I want to.

I've never thrown stones at anybody's windows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

<snip>
I'm a little at a loss here. Perhaps if I try to introduce the idea as I see it, you might be able to get a better aim on it when using the notions that Williams supplies.

[t2]Hegemony might be seen as a fluid politically motivated set of dominant cultural values through which power is wielded, not by force, but by consent. It is fluid because those values can generally change to meet the exigencies of any current circumstances to maintain power. It is determined by the needs of those classes that share the power. It is the status quo. As long as people consent to the hegemonic values, the distribution of power is maintained. You agree to be dominated. You accept as competent the institutions that determine many of those values, legal, educational, medical, religious, media. Who are you anyway to want a hand in making such decisions that are generally beyond your expertise?

You are usually born into hegemony, so you normally don't notice its existence. It even functions best not being noticed. Hegemony is more than the sum of those dominant cultural values, because it has institutions to maintain it. It is extremely difficult for the individual to perceive its existence. We perceive the values that function in hegemony are useful, whether they are or not. They are familiar to us and become second nature. But they are only our values in that they are the ones we received. They are not necessarily for our benefit.

Those values that we don't learn from our parents, schools often attempt to provide, preparing us generally to be good citizens. As a safety net the various mass media reinforce the values of our society or keep us entertained enough to have no interest. Of course your consent is also manufactured by your desire to possess the products available as an incentive for you to work and participate in the circulation of value by buying. The child wants the toy. The child wants the lolly. The child wants the toothrot. In our society the child is early hooked into accepting hegemony.

It is usually only through accidents or changes of perspective (such as are gained by leaving the particular hegemony and entering another) that one can begin to perceive the reality of hegemony. Or maybe through a more expressive communicant of the idea than me. And if by chance you develop vocal opposition to hegemonic values, well, that's usually fine, for you as an individual can say whatever you like against hegemony, but lacking access to the means of mass communication, you'll waste your breath. Winning hearts and minds one person at a time is bound to fail to have effect against a society as large as ours, but if you are able to start affecting a wider section of the population, then there are means for dealing with that as well.[/t2]

Part of that definition of 'hegemony' is that it is a set of dominant cultural values together with the institutions which maintain them.

What are the dominant cultural values, and what are the institution maintaining them, that you think are relevant to the present discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

<snip>
There are sins of commission and sins of omission. It is the second category that I was complaining about.

Every time I post something here which responds to something else previously posted here, I omit to respond to everything that has been posted here. There's no sin in that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

<snip> You are not denying well-formulated positions, but ignoring them.

I made an observation clearly directed to one category of cases. It is the category into which this particular thread falls. I said nothing of any kind about other threads which do not fall into that category. I suppose you could say in a sense that I 'ignore' every thread I don't comment on, but that's the same for everybody here, and so what?

No, the issue is that you need to pay for the whinge.

I deny that you have any right to invoice me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

<snip>t seems it would take more explanatory power than I am currently capable of to provide you with what you need. Illich was interested in the the effects of institutions on individuals and how to circumvent those effects. Although he doesn't talk about it, the institutions themselves are manifestations of hegemony that help maintain the hegemony. He argued that the members of the society were more important than the institutions. Perhaps his work called "Tools of Conviviality" might help you.

Is it possible for you to give a specific example of something I posted that was not convivial, and how I could have made it more convivial?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

<snip>
A historicist in discussions here is a person who believes that Jesus is a historically identifiable real figure.

That's not sufficiently clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, it is part of the hegemonic way of things. There are frequently more than two sides to things and we need to be able to carry all views ahead and see what they are based on and where they can go.

Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

On the issue of the historical Jesus, which is what interests a lot of us,

A lot of people here are interested in discussions in which they use the term 'historical Jesus', but in those discussions that term has no clear meaning, and to the extent that the discussion centres on that term, or closely related ones, it becomes incoherent as a result. People think they're disagreeing, agreeing, asserting, denying, but in fact they're doing none of those things because the statements in the discussions have never been defined with adequate clarity.

Throwing out the term won't change anything. Clarifying it might. I have put forward a consistent view on the term.

Would it be too much trouble for you to repeat that view, or to direct my attention to a location where you have stated it clearly already?

(I've somehow screwed up the depth of quotes and should be two levels deeper, but to answer the question regarding my view--which I should have answered the first time--, the "historical Jesus" is a person who we know through historiographical methods participated in the past. Jesus may have been real but without validated historical evidence he cannot be "historical". Historicity is determined through the application of historiographical methods on the available evidence. If historicity cannot be determined, that fact doesn't negate the possibility of existence. It just means no substantive claims can be made based on his existence.)

Another unclarity.

Suppose I take what you said at face value. Then I include this entry in my compilation of a glossary of terms used by spin:
historical Jesus: 'a person who we know through historiographical methods participated in the past'

But wait a moment! Wasn't Timur the Lame a person who we know through historiographical methods participated in the past? Surely he was. But that doesn't mean he was a, or the, historical Jesus, surely?

So 'a person who we know through historiographical methods participated in the past' is not a satisfactory full clear definition of what you mean by 'historical Jesus'. If you have a clear meaning, it's something more specific than that, but you haven't expressed it clearly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why not try to air the issue in order to get more people to consider its significance?

I am not clear on which issue it is that you are suggesting, at this point, should be aired.

Your concerns regarding the significance of the "historical Jesus". You might beat out the content of the term in a new thread.

My concern about the term is that people who use it don't respond to requests for them to clarify what they mean by it.

spin · 06-02-2012, 06:42 PM

J-D, thanks for the entertaining examples of your modus operandi. I'm glad to see that you are such a constructive poster and that you grasp things so quickly. Keep it up. Don't mind me sniping at times when you continue to do your civic duty.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2012, 03:52 PM	#65
anethema Regular Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: ohio Posts: 112	It is imo a case of cultural "blinders", I called it Borgian implants in a previous post. The cultural divide between East and West is a poignant analogy. People cannot get beyond their ingrained pre-suppositions enough to have a rational discussion. Although it is still fun to argue with intelligent people whenever possible.

06-02-2012, 06:42 PM	#70
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	J-D, thanks for the entertaining examples of your modus operandi. I'm glad to see that you are such a constructive poster and that you grasp things so quickly. Keep it up. Don't mind me sniping at times when you continue to do your civic duty.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.