Steven Carr

On his site, Bede has a piece by a writer called 'Justin Marytr' <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/frazer.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bede.org.uk/frazer.htm</a> denying any parallels between Christianity and paganism, and in particular any connection between Christinaity and Lord Raglan's (who he?) classical hero figure.

On his site, Turkel has a piece by a writer called 'Justin Martyr'

<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/pagint.html#win" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/pagint.html#win</a> affirming many parallels between Churchill and paganism, and in particular the connection between Churchill and Lord Raglan's (who he?) classical hero figure.

Is Bede quoting the same writer as Turkel and does Bede really believe there are more parallels between Churchill and pagan hero figures than Jesus and pagan hero figures?

Or is 'Justin Martyr' conning both Turkel and Bede?

or is Justin martyr just hopelessely biased and will argue for and against the same thing if it suits him?

What is going on here?

Bill

See <a href="http://department.monm.edu/classics/Courses/Clas230/MythDocuments/HeroPattern/default.htm" target="_blank">THIS PAGE</a> for a brief synopsis of Lord Raglan's classical hero figure.

== Bill

Bede

Steven,

Justin M has allowed both JP Holding and myself to publish an essay or two of his. As he's a professional scholar from a top university who knows his stuff, I suggest you treat his work with a little more respect.

Justin's point is basically that Raglan's system is silly and he parodies it on Holding's site to demonstrate that silliness. I fully agree with his assessment.

Yours

Bede

PS: Steven, I appreciate you have been getting some flack from King A, but sometimes you come across as just plain nasty. Please moderate this if you expect me, or anyone else, to respond to your posts.

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Steven Carr

You mean Justin Martyr is caricaturing and ridiculuing athiests by writing gibberish, pretending that is how atheists argue, and you accuse me of being nasty! Amazing!

Why should I expect responses to my posts from you? You haven't come up with examples to back up your rationalisation about NT copying from the LXX, despite repeated requests for you to demonstrate that your theory was not something that you just made up.

Steven Carr

Bede 'fully agrees with this assessment'. Bede's ananoymous scholar writes that Churchill was not buried and Bede agrees with that!

Surely Bede calling it a parody, does not allow him to excuse the *stupidity* of what his annoymous scholar 'Justin Martyr' wrote. Perhaps Bede can take some of the article on Turkel' site and explain why he 'fully agrees' with what his friend wrote. Of course, 'stupidity' is a hash, nasty word, and Bede will rapidly explain why saying that Churchill was born of a virgin was not stupid.

Bede

The site doesn't say that Churchill was born of a virgin or that he was unburied. It just lists Raglan's criteria and adds some handwaving comment making spurious connections. In this way it is basically the same as the sceptics here who have tried to say that Jesus fulfills many of the criteria and hence doesn't exist.

It's parody, Steven. Have you lost your sense of humour by being in Germany too long?

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Steven Carr

It's insulting, and childish, and if you had an ounce of decency, you would distance yourself from it. And rise enormously in the respect of everybody here. I know you are better than the attitude portrayed in the article about Churchill.

However, let me give you the chance to bury yourself deeper in the mud, if you really do want to wallow there. Which posters here claim Jesus does not exist because he fulfills Lord Raglan's (who he?) criteria?

In what way is your friends analysis of Churchill 'basically the same as the sceptics here'? I know you don't like giving examples, but I think you should make an effort to defend your friend's writing. What does 'basically the same' mean here?

Bede

Steven,

1) I'm not going to take time for in depth research simply to win an argument with you. Even if I did win you'd never admit it (like your mistake on Dawkins that you never backed down even though you emailed me about it in the first place.)

2) I'm not King Arthur. His opinions are his own and I don't claim to subscribe to them. I said that Christians didn't disown or try to bury the Septuagint. This is true whether you like it or erect strawmen on divine inspiration or not.

On Raglan et al:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000004&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000004&p=</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000197" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000197</a>

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Steven Carr

What mistake on Dawkins?

Dawkins wrote that if we see a statue of the Virgin Mary waving its arm, we should treat it as a miracle. Your web site quotes (last time I looked) behe, who says that Dawkins tells his readers that if they see a statue of teh Virgin Mary waving its arm, they should not treat it as a miracle.

You indulged in logic-chopping and out of context quotes to prove that Dawkins meant the opposite of what he wrote.

But thanks for the examples, which I shall look at. To be honest, I had never heard of teh poster 'Lord Raglan@ before. I know we have a King Arthur and a Venerable Bede, but not a Lord. is there an II registry handing out these titles? (I think I am allowed a knighthood at least....)

Steven Carr

Thanks for the examples, but I think your friends parody of them on Turkel's site is childish, and you will find it hard to back up your stated claims that this article was 'basically the same', as sceptical reasoning.

To quote the thread 'As Price notes in the article you cite, this still can't answer the question if Jesus was an entirely mythic creation, or if he was a real person with a large overlay of mythic characteristics.' So why do you think sceptics like Price claim that somebody fitting the Raglan scheme are mythical?

To be honest, I'm surprised you want to defend the Churchill article. You are better than that.

And your claim that I said on my web page that Christians tried to disown or bury the Septuagint is a strawman. Almost all Christians I know are hardly aware of the Septuagint, and use only the Hebrew Scriptures (which they often refer to just by that name).