Pr0x1mo

Called: Ad Nauseum

Roger Pearse

Well, Toto, since you do no more than reiterate the same position again, pardon me if I refer you to what has already been written. I'm afraid your post still doesn't explain why we should read this absurd idea into the text, and as such, there seems no more to say.

By the way, while we're on the subject do YOU disapprove of lying? And if so, why? Nothing in the profession of atheism suggests to me that such a taboo is inherent in that position.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

joedad

Bede,

I think the following best illustrates how high classical western culture viewed magic, at least according to Kieckhefer:

Now we're getting somewhere as to understanding magic as it was known in these times, at least from Kieckhefer's perspective. He continues:

So this is "magic." Not so terribly difficult to understand, and a great help in comprehending the use of amulets during these times, nicely explaining how the use of amulets was so ubiquitous, yet how some were deemed "magical" and others not.

And that is precisely where things get interesting from the perspective of early christianity. Keickhefer writes:

So, Bede, at least now we have a working definition of magic as it applied in the times of early christianity. Kieckhefer elaborates on this basic definition and traces its evolution, but for purposes of discussing religion vs magic in these times, the only difference from a standpoint of high christian culture is that all non-christian religion was the domain of demons. This renders your earlier definition of the difference between magical iconography and christian religious iconography:

more doublespeak than anything. With Keickhefer's book in hand, I'm left wondering why you could not have been more precise and historically accurate. Keickhefer spells it out quite nicely, don't you think?

Could you (or anyone else) tell me how one writes "Jesus M" in Aramaic? I ask because your crucifixion amulet has no cross, but it does supposedly contain the above inscription. The only thing orienting the image is the identification code for cataloging, and personally, I can no more make this into a crucifixion than I could make von Daniken's Inca/Aztec stone carvings into evidence of rocket travel and extraterrestrial visitations. I sincerely believe the author is seeing this bit of iconography through a christian crucifixion lens.

But if someone will give me the Aramaic for "Jesus M," that might help.

Toto

[I've been referring people back to what has already been written. I have nothing new to say. Your position seems to be based on the idea that Eusebius just could not have thought of the Bible as fictional except in the most perfectly benign sense - an argument from personal incredulity.]

So this is what it comes down to - the old atheists are immoral argument?

I disapprove of lying. I hold to metaphysical naturalism, that the real world is all that there is, and dealing with the real world requires accurate information.

Eusebius and most Christians, however, hold that the highest good is saving souls. Scientific accuracy seems to take a back seat to this higher goal at times.

Yellum Notnef

Nice work joedad.
I've been following this thread and had a feeling that things wouldn't turn out quite like Bede would have us believe.

Would it be possible for you to scan the picture of that amulet so we can all take a look at it?

Roger Pearse

You're right. You see, the position we're invited to adopt instead is based on the idea that Eusebius, a patristic bishop, could have thought of the bible as fictional in a malign sense.

But for this remarkable idea, no evidence is offered, or indeed available.

Faced with the choice, I think we should go with the general flow of his works and life, and not with a weird idea based on a polemical interpretation of a single passage at the bottom of a page 300 pages into a work about something else.

Isn't that more rational? I.e., let's go with context, not pretext?

Um, surely it is young atheists who are immoral? Old atheists just wish they could be? The plumbing gives up at 40, you know.

When the immoral accuse others of immorality, certain questions will always occur to the outsider! Atheist polemicists can assert immorality is fine -- which they do --, or demand morality of others. But surely they cannot do both, without damaging their credibility?

<smile> It does indeed. For all of us, I think that this starts with looking at what things say, and not what they can be made to mean. No doubt you think that is what I am doing, but I can't help that!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Is this what the bits you quote say? I did not read them so. Why do you suppose that pagan religion is a matter of sorcery? Do the pagan writers think this? I do not think so. This is a third value system, I'd have thought.

Sorry, but it looks to me as if you've misunderstood Bede's post. Your source -- who is this person? -- is discussing pagan worries about sorcery, which was a criminal offence in Roman law, I believe. The statements made by K. seem to be correct. However they don't deal with Bede's point.

(Just so you don't end up arguing at cross-purposes)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

I never asserted that Eusebius was an evil liar in his own eyes., or that the fictions in the Bible were malign. I'm sure he thought he was doing the Lord's work, and that every word in the Bible had a sacred purpose.

I am only saying that if he asserted that X happened, I would suspect that his motive was to save souls, not to save an accurate record of a real event.

This is bizarre.

1. No, it doesn't. But that's all I will say on the matter.

2. Atheist moralists and Christian moralists differ on the morality of what we might call victimless crimes - actions against the word of the Bible, that don't hurt other people.

Atheist polemicists may assert that what Christians call "immorality" is not in fact immoral, as long as no one is hurt.

I do not know of any atheist moralists or polemicists who think that lying about historical facts is fine (although I'm sure we can all think of some situations where a social lie might be called for, whether you're a good Christian or not.)

I'm not sure how you got from the ethics of lying about history to sex so quickly and seamlessly. Am I to assume that you are under 40 and still in the grip of those hormones, so you can't think of anything else?

joedad

Roger Pearse,

According to Kieckhefer, all paganism was magical - period - as far as high christian culture was concerned. I don't know whether the average person on the street agreed with this argument, but certainly Kieckhefer states this much, and Kieckhefer is Bede's introduction.

Therefore, Bede's definition of what differentiates magic from christian religion simply doesn't wash. We could just as easily imagine a high pagan culture making the same claim about christianity, namely that christianity is all the work of demons and therefore "magical," but that would not further our understanding of what constitutes "magic" for this time period and from a high christian perspective.

So when Bede talks about amulets, we must use Keickhefer's definition of magic, and not Bede's. Using Keickhefer's definition of magic, any pagan amulet or amulet with a demonic inference is automatically magical. For the times circa these particular amulets, using Bede's definition of magic and not Keickhefer's really does constitute an anachronism and leaves us without an understanding of what constitutes the difference between any "magical" amulet and any "christian religious" amulet. Okay?

Keickhefer describes Bede's magical amuletIt doesn't show the magical characters on the reverse, but that is in fact what would make the amulet at all magical. And I asked for "Jesus M" in Aramaic because I assume the amulet does not say "_essiah," but that it is only inferred, and to try to orient it properly.

Bede

Actually, I fully agree with RK's statement of magic as far as Augustine and other fathers viewed pagan religion. However, when Joedad has read the rest of the book he will find that the subject of magic is far wider than he currently imagines and that the view that all magic is demonic by no means applies to all Christians. When joedad has read a little more he will discover about astral magic, herbalism as well as straight forward demonology.

Nice to see he is educating himself. He (and Toto and Sauron) would rather disembowell themselves than admit a theist got something right but they still learn something inspite of themselves.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason