Apikorus

Albert, every discussion has a context. Analyzing ancient texts, particularly theologically tendentious ones, is not quite the same thing as dispassionate mathematical logic.

The fact that Jesus was an historical figure gives him a leg up on characters such as Hercules and Krishna. (Though some extreme skeptics deny Jesus ever existed.) But just because there really was a Troy - Schliemann discovered it - does not mean that the Iliad is itself unswervingly historical.

I think only a fool would insist that the New Testament is "completely true" or "completely false". It likely contains some real historical data as well as fabricated tales. That the gospel writers apparently borrowed key phrases from the Septuagint of the Elijah and Elisha cycles in constructing their miracle stories of Jesus suggests that the gospel hagiographies are partially fictionalized.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

sir drinks-a-lot

Now &lt;i&gt;there&lt;/i&gt; is a liberal helping of illogical conclusions! Pot calls kettle black. &lt;i&gt;Could is be that mankind doesn't find the truth exciting?&lt;/i&gt; It is an interesting question. Your unsupporeted assertion of "No!" for an answer is also interesting.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Apikorus,
You say:


I say: Every scoundrel has his weasel-word-hole refuge.

You say:


Oh, for some dispassionate mathematical logic around here! I thought you atheists prided yourselves on being logical. The illogic I’m fighting goes like this:
1) The greatest story ever told sounds suspiciously similar to a lot of also-rans.
2) The also-rans were myths.
3) Ergo the greatest story ever told is a myth.

Or for you more mathematical types: A is like B. B = False. Ergo, A = False. It's the affirmation of the consequent fallacy.

Then you call me a fool by saying:


Geez. If God really existed, the penny ante miracles described in the New Testament ain't nothing in comparison to the His pulling off the Big Bang and our daily consciousness. Yet you have the temerity to opine:


Yeah, I'm the fool. And you're a better authority than God as to what miracles He said He performed. Give me a break.

As you said: "Every discussion has its context." The limitations you place on God reveals that you yourself and only yourself are the context for your un-argued assertions about Him. If you were more honest you would admit that it's your bias about God's non-existence that's doing your talking and not pretend you are having a discussion within a theistic context. – Disgusted, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Apikorus

Albert, when you see a homeless street prophet, do you ever consider that he might be a bona fide prophet?

Do you think the Iliad might be completely true?

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

theophilus

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>

Apikorus

I don't think your procedure for vetting street prophets is very good, theophilus. Not everything is predicted in the Bible. Suppose for the purposes of argument the putative prophet could accurately quote chapter and verse. Then what? There are many nutcases who know the Bible quite well.

As for the Iliad, it certainly may be read as an historical document. When it says "Agamemnon said X" what reason do you have to doubt it?

The Asclepius testimonials appear to be even more dispassionately historical. We have many records of claims of miraculous healings by the Greek god Asclepius. In one case, a man who had no eyes put a salve in his eyes and prayed to Asclepius. In the morning, he had eyes and he could see. How do you evaluate this claim?

It is true that I am invariably skeptical over claims of miracles. If someone told you that he met a man who could cook toast with his mind, you probably would be skeptical too. I believe that extraordinary claims require meticulously well-documented evidence - at least that is what is required to convince me. Others no doubt are more credulous.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

lpetrich

The Buddha was a sort-of atheist, and his followers have created lots of myths about him, such as how he was conceived when his mother dreamed that a white elephant entered her side, and how he had worked various miracles. Doing a web search for "Buddha miracles" uncovered several examples.

The same can be said about the deities of a variety of religions. Does AC accept that the deities of Mt. Olympus are real beings and not figments of the imagination?

How are the Gospels supposed to be "the greatest story ever told"? My point is: what's to distinguish the Gospels from stories about the life of Hercules or Perseus or Romulus and Remus or Krishna?

Apikorus was only pointing out the strong textual resemblance, such as close to word-for-word copies from the Septuagint translation of the Tanakh/OT. Which agrees with the hypothesis that the original texts of the Gospels had been in Greek.

Furthermore, AC, those miracles are what JC's followers had claimed that JC had done. For my part, I don't see how Jesus Christ's miracles are very much different from the Buddha's miracles or Apollonius of Tyana's miracles or St. Genevieve's miracles or Sai Baba's miracles or Kim Il-Sung's miracles or Kim Jong-Il's miracles.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Apikorus,
No and No.

When you ask questions, they should lead somewhere. – Frustrated, Albert the Traditional Catholic <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Apikorus

They do lead somewhere, Albert. You're just not following.

LianaLi

To make sure I’m following you correctly:
1) People make up stories about what thrills them.
2) This need to make up stories is inherent in people.
3) The prescience of this need is a sign that “them” exists.

In your case, “them” is god. People postulate myths and stories about some deity because it excites them. So every human urge to do something thrilling is proof that that thrilling thing is evidence for….? That thrilling action to be good? A sign of god?

I MUST be missing a step somewhere.


So human altruism is a sign of god, and we should all accept that? By that standard, anything which thrills us must be good. Anyone up for some cocaine? Getting high? X? I heard it’s a great thrill. I fail to see how thrill=sign and/or justification for anything, other than the want for enjoyment.

What I also fail to see, is how creation of myths is verification for any god. Does this also mean all mythologies about any deity are true? Does this mean the Greek pantheon is true? There’s a whole lot of myths created for it. How do you differentiate between religions? Each one has made up myths for a deity. Are they all evidence for the same deity then? If so, how do you justify the vast inconsistencies between each myth and its justification for a god?

They really must be putting something else in the communion wafers today.

-Liana, the former catholic