maryhelena

And just who gets to decide what *reason* is - someone by the handle of 'spin' - :bow:

nice try spin but no cigar - :rolling::rolling::rolling:

Chaucer

-- is a figure entirely consistent with more than just one pagan source and thus of enormous relevance to h-u-m-a-n-i-s-t-s, precisely because it pays no lip service to "either Jewish messianic ideas or christian 'salvation' ideas".

Now looking forward to hearing from a skeptic HJ-er,

Chaucer

spin

It doesn't imply me. Just not those in "no person's land". Commitment doesn't foster objectivity.

The cigar certainly is no aid to breathing. Give it to Chaucer.

spin

You'd best get supplies while waiting for one. Wouldn't want you to starve. Remember the Talking Heads song?


Still waiting...


Still waiting...


...

Chaucer

Ah, since you evidently expect no skeptic HJ-er on this board to come along and claim the HJ construct as dependent on certain readings of the gospels, that would mean that you believe Toto and MH to be in error, and MH's confounding-the-HJ-er-and-Christian-stance-as-one to be, effectively, a slur on the skeptic HJ-ers on this board.

Isn't it great we cleared that up?

Why thank you,

Chaucer

maryhelena

This is getting ridiculous - Chaucer - what you need is for a historical JC proponent to come along and distance himself 100% from the gospel story. No cheating allowed...

Lets see if anyone of them has the b***s to do such a thing....methinks no-one wants to make themselves a laughing stock...

spin

My comment was more direct than you seem to believe. You were talking about something you called a "skeptic HJ-er". Given the enormity of christian cultural hegemony, analytically, a "skeptic HJ-er" would seem to be a linguistic anomaly, verging on an oxymoron, its content the dynamic equivalent to a unicorn or analogous to "the living dead".

I can understand the term "pagan HJ-er", but when someone supports hegemonic tenets, there is little hope for skepticism toward the hegemony.

Skepticism comes not with belief in something is right nor with belief in something is wrong, but in agnosticism when the indications are unclear in the face of hegemony.

You're so very welcome, Chaucer.


Still waiting...


Still waiting...

Chaucer

Don't you DARE put words into my mouth. Plenty of HJ-ers know damn well just what I mean when I reference skeptic HJ-ers, thank you very much. I mean HJ-ers WHO ARE NOT BELIEVERS IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION -- that's what I mean -- of whom there are plenty throughout the world -- and on this board. If you tar such HJ-er non-believers with being believers, you are effectively indulging in the same kind of slur and falsification against non-believer HJ-ers ON THIS BOARD that MH did in her post.

So there.

Chaucer

Chaucer

No, I am not waiting for a non-believer HJ-er to distance himself from the gospels. That is a diametrically incorrect representation of what I'm waiting for. After all, non-believer HJ-ers of my acquaintance have already distanced themselves from the gospels plenty of times, thank you.

I am waiting for something quite the contrary: I am waiting for an HJ-er to second what Toto has effectively claimed -- that the non-believer HJ-er does depend on a certain reading of the gospels for the historical HJ idea. Since obviously the historical HJ idea is borne out very consistently in the four or five pagan sources out there, I don't see how the non-believer HJ-er is dependent on the gospels at all for this idea/construct.

Now, Toto would claim the contrary. If she is right, then your preposterous conflation -- your "historical gospel HJ idea"(!!!!!!!!!!!!) nonsense -- is not, effectively, a slur on all non-believer HJ-ers and not a ridiculous conflation of the believing Christian's and the non-believer HJ-er's ideas.

However, if no non-believer HJ-er steps forward and seconds Toto's surprising assertion concerning non-believer HJ-ers by claiming dependence on a certain reading of the gospels for the HJ idea -- and no HJ-er here has done that yet -- then your ridiculous notion of a conflated "historical gospel HJ idea"(!!!!!!!!!!!!) nonsense is not only a ridiculous conflation of the believing Christian's and the non-believer HJ-er's ideas; it is also, effectively, a slur on all non-believer HJ-ers on this board as, somehow, crypto-believers! That is, effectively, a slur that is intolerable to a number of non-believer members on this board and a slur that needs the mods' immediate attention.

You better hope that a non-believer HJ-er in good standing on this board does step forward to second Toto's surprising claim about the non-believer HJ-er's dependence on a certain reading of the gospels for the historical HJ idea. In the absence of a non-believer HJ-er's seconding Toto's surprising claim, my complaint stands, and you have, effectively, slurred non-believer HJ-ers on this board. I will not withdraw my complaint until a non-believer HJ-er in good standing on this board seconds Toto's surprising claim. Absent that, I will continue to pursue this de facto slur of yours through the proper channels on this board.

In fact, I have already filed a formal complaint with the mods.

Thank you,

Chaucer

maryhelena

Nonsense. Who cares what motivation anyone has when they attempt to interpret a piece of literature. God is irrelevant - re-read that - god is irrelevant to understanding or interpreting the gospel story of JC. It is history that is relevant - and only history. That some people want to have a magic version of JC and other people want an ordinary bloke for their JC - all that is is variations on a theme - the gospel story theme. That the historical JC people want to claim the high ground for their assumption because they are not 'believers' is pure nonsense and is no better than pointing to the speck of dust in ones brothers eye while there is a plank in ones own. At least the 'believers' are aware of their 'magic' - it seems to me that it's those who uphold the assumption of a historical gospel JC as an ordinary bloke, that are suffering a case of delusion here...