tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post728674257697730860..comments2024-03-14T00:12:21.113-07:00Comments on If I became an atheist: Go ahead, make my dayfeenohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07483769284197614547noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-16989026412859656582010-09-04T13:01:58.826-07:002010-09-04T13:01:58.826-07:00Hey There Feenster, the Anti-Meanster!
Gotta say,...Hey There Feenster, the Anti-Meanster!<br /><br />Gotta say, a self respecting poster probably would not have jumped on that comment slot like a hungry carrot on a turd, but then again, I'm not a very self-respecting poster, am I?<br /><br />The pleasure of that act was very self-rewarding, so no external prize could have really added to the sublime personal satisfaction I garnered from merely claiming that slot with a comment that merely claimed that slot! That is, some might question why I couldn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation, but not me...<br /><br />Keep Laughin', Brother!<br /><br />Nobody Cooler Schuler<br />Just demonstratin' why you gave me that name!<br /><br />PS<br /><br />My thanks to all of the sincere posters who, by working diligently at their keyboards without thought of personal reward, allowed this moment of celebration to be realized. THANKS!<br /><br />SNSSteve Schulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17507446648186799208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-26795273804928678732010-09-04T07:45:55.137-07:002010-09-04T07:45:55.137-07:00Nobody Cooler, It sure is. But I didn't want t...Nobody Cooler, It sure is. But I didn't want to mention it in fear of having to give cash and prizes away to the Lucky # 100.<br /><br />So hopefully bobaloo's pat on the back will do?<br /><br />Later SteveO, feenOfeenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483769284197614547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-42129918809661936722010-09-03T16:17:01.909-07:002010-09-03T16:17:01.909-07:00Hey Bob! Thanks for the congrats!
Actually I was...Hey Bob! Thanks for the congrats!<br /><br />Actually I was just taking advatage of a serendipitous moment. Sometimes time, space, and personal circumstance come together in rare, but beautiful, combinations. And so it was yesterday when I checked in on this topic and noticed that the 100th post was beckoning to be written. 100 is a magical, Yea! even a mystical number, and whenever possible I like to tap into the hidden powers associated with it by closely associating myself with things of this most wonderful of numbers. As it has often been said, "Opportunity missed is opportunity wasted" and I chose not to waste that golden opportunity and I jumped on it like a fox on a hare! Or like a hare on a carrot!<br /><br />But seriously, I think that this might be a record number of comments on a topic here at Feeno's Place in Cyber Space, but the Feenster would have to speak on that, as I don't really know.<br /><br />Thanks again for the congrats,<br /><br />SteveOSteve Schulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17507446648186799208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-26661113842650815692010-09-03T03:56:27.663-07:002010-09-03T03:56:27.663-07:00It said..."If you answer my direct question t...It said..."<b>If you answer my direct question that you dodged earlier, I will address every one of these.</b>"<br /><br />It is under the mistaken assumption that I care one bit what Its thoughts are on Ingersoll.<br /><br />And It lives in a fantasy land where every question It asks deserves to be answered.<br /><br />It is an ass.<br /><br />...but, if It so desperately wants an answer to Its question, It can post it again and I'll see if I can muster an answer...but I'll be damned if I am going to wade through the endless lines of dung that It spreads with every tap of Its index fingers, trying to find the question It is obsessed with.<br /><br />Congrats Steve. I bow down to your impeccable timing and reflexes.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742473910850953368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-79150072739447423352010-09-02T15:25:59.825-07:002010-09-02T15:25:59.825-07:00The Century Mark Is Mine!!!!
Carry on, Kids.
Ste...The Century Mark Is Mine!!!!<br /><br />Carry on, Kids.<br /><br />Stevolious CenturiusSteve Schulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17507446648186799208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-60255740403739250182010-09-02T11:53:15.568-07:002010-09-02T11:53:15.568-07:00If you answer my direct question that you dodged e...If you answer my direct question that you dodged earlier, I will address every one of these.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-29869434482556673752010-09-02T06:16:32.280-07:002010-09-02T06:16:32.280-07:00Apparently It is incapable of coming up with even ...Apparently It is incapable of coming up with even an original insult.<br />I'll give It a hint - I am below average in height (5' 7"). <br />Perhaps that fact will provide It with enough inspiration to come up with something I haven't heard before.<br /><br />It wanted Ingersoll's best argument, so as to prove It's penis was longer than his. It is so funny:<br /><br />"The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it."<br /><br />"Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo."<br /><br />"Do I believe in eternal punishment? Hell no. I always believed God could get his revenge in far less time."bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742473910850953368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-68320621106351599662010-09-01T18:00:25.795-07:002010-09-01T18:00:25.795-07:00It would appear that a certain commenter not only ...It would appear that a certain commenter not only fell out of the stupid tree, but in fact hit every single branch on the way down.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-27620089268708878872010-09-01T16:43:25.501-07:002010-09-01T16:43:25.501-07:00WOW! It must be home alone again.WOW! It must be home alone again.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742473910850953368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-32339442980671067682010-09-01T12:43:39.665-07:002010-09-01T12:43:39.665-07:00I almost want to cry out to the above commenter......I almost want to cry out to the above commenter...<br /><br />"..you stuck your big fat runny nose in and dripped snot all over the place. <br />Yes, I am insulting you. <br />You are a jack ass of the highest order. <br />You wouldn't recognize a decent, calm dialog if it sat on your face and wiggled. <br />You are a short,chubby, internet bully who hides behind his 13" monochrome CRT desperately trying to offend, but your attempts have no more affect than sand chaffing my crack after a day at the beach.<br />I hate you I hate you I hate you I hope you die"<br /><br />But I believe those words are the intellectual property of another here.<br /><br />I wonder who that might be.....J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-8420264428779370302010-09-01T12:11:23.116-07:002010-09-01T12:11:23.116-07:00Pleas note that the above commentator is completel...Pleas note that the above commentator is completely oblivious to the fact that I stated in my above entry timestamped at 8:51 in which I wrote...<br /><br />"And let me ask <b>again</b>, is there any evidence that Roman Mithrism predates the middle of the second century?<br /><br />If not, might I suggest that we eliminate this belief system as one that Christianity 'borrowed' from and move on to the next best example that you could cite?"<br /><br />All of this goes to demonstrate the verifiable facts the Blob not only refuses to answer direct questions when put to her, but that she cannot follow a simple conversation, even when a full text of said conversation is immediately under her nose.<br /><br />Bravo.<br /><br />For an encore, might she now like to offer up the best argument she possibly can from her dream boyfriend, Robert Ingersoll, so I can obliterate it and then she can refuse to comment on it?<br /><br />Wait a minute....J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-7955320916075935812010-09-01T08:30:43.365-07:002010-09-01T08:30:43.365-07:00TD Vick, did you get that? If IT thinks any of yo...TD Vick, did you get that? If IT thinks any of your conclusions are faulty, IT then considers ALL of your conclusions faulty and will not even consider further reading. <br /><br />In other words, you can't reason someone out of Christianity who didn't use reason to get into Christianity.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742473910850953368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-41596411506680233242010-09-01T08:04:28.892-07:002010-09-01T08:04:28.892-07:00These are the historians whose research I have loo...<i>These are the historians whose research I have looked into. You might want to start there... and maybe after reading a couple of them we can have an informed discussion on the formulation of early Christianity</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but is this advice coming from someone who, it would appear, was completely clueless to the fact that Persian Mithra and Roman Mithras were <i>not</i> one and the same? And this revelation merely came about because it was the first example we decided to compare with the early Christian church and it's highly probable that the other examples he cited might be equally unsupported by historical facts as well?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-18145015160530190312010-08-31T10:44:24.544-07:002010-08-31T10:44:24.544-07:00TMC, no, I wasn't playing with you. My questi...TMC, no, I wasn't playing with you. My questions were entirely honest. Thanks for clearing up many of them.<br /><br />If you feel like it, please answer my last one -"I get the impression that you know what atheism's "logical and inevitable conclusions" are. Please share."<br /><br />As to your statement of CS Lewis's comment - "...either He was a lunatic, a liar or Lord of all. He did not leave us another option."<br /><br />Actually, there is another option - Perhaps Jesus never claimed what he is reported to have claimed.<br /><br />TMC - "I explained very clearly that I have examined the claims of Christianity and why I believe they are true. I also explained very clearly why I believe Islam and Mormonism are mistaken, again by scrutinizing their claims. So what is Bob’s reaction?"<br /><br />I didn't "react". I just commented on your comments. It seemed, since you said "So it is entirely reasonable to at least be a deist,..." and you consider beliefs in other named gods to be pretty much wrong or unreasonable, it seemed obvious that as long as a person doesn't name their god or name any of his personality traits, you will consider that a reasonable conclusion. But the moment they give their god a name, or define it in any way, they become unreasonable in your mind.<br />I just felt the need to point that out. I am not surprised by your belief. I just find it curious. <br />Deists and Christians are reasonable, Muslims and Mormons are not. <br />Atheists - well, as long as they are intellectually honesty. <br /><br />I find that requirement rather funny when I look at all the supernatural beliefs Christians subscribe to: raising's from the dead, a disembodied hand writing on a wall, water changing to wine, parting of a sea, walking around in a fiery furnace, walking on water, worldwide flood, sticks turning to snakes, and on and on. Yet you require intellectual honesty from me...? <br /><br />Even though I am confronted by this attitude from believers almost daily, I continue to be amazed.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06904304335819109123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-77898425528167727282010-08-31T06:13:45.554-07:002010-08-31T06:13:45.554-07:00TMC & JD:
I know you'll probably just shr...TMC & JD:<br /><br />I know you'll probably just shrug off any book recommendations I might give you, but I thought I might list some scholars which you should familiarize yourselves with. <br /><br />Robert M. Price has written an amazingly in depth book called "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" which actually focuses on the legendary hypothesis, since Price is the most prominent of recent supporters for this theory.<br /><br />But if you have a Price bias, regardless of how scholarly he is, I would also suggest you read Joseph R. Hoffmann, Stevan L. Davies, Burton L. Mack, Hugh J. Schonfield, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, David Friedrich Strauss, Albert Schweitzer, Morton Smith, and Rudolf Bultmann.<br /><br />These are the historians whose research I have looked into. You might want to start there... and maybe after reading a couple of them we can have an informed discussion on the formulation of early Christianity.<br /><br />But as it is you're merely spouting Christian rhetoric... which is fine if your goal is to evangelize. It does nothing to enhance the discussion about the historical facts however.<br /><br />If you know of any Christian theologians or scholars that are a must read... feel free to send some recommendations my way too!<br /><br />Peace out!Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-8281165683331673242010-08-31T06:07:34.471-07:002010-08-31T06:07:34.471-07:00Bob, I am scratching my head trying to figure out ...Bob, I am scratching my head trying to figure out how to respond or if I should respond at all? Are you not understanding or perhaps missing what I am saying, or are you just having fun with me by twisting my words? I still want to believe you are serious, so please help me out here.<br /><br />I said it is reasonable to AT LEAST be a deist, because a deist has concluded that some type of supernatural being created the universe, though he does not believe this Being intervenes in the affairs of men. Einstein said he believed in “Spinoza’s God”. The bottom line is that it is logical and reasonable to look at the ordered cosmos, as did Einstein and many other scientists. They concluded that the universe had a beginning,; they looked at the design and consistency of its laws, the development of life under perfect conditions for it to be created, and they concluded that a supernatural being is behind it all.<br /><br />But deism is the bottom rung of the belief ladder, basically limited to believing there is Someone or Something out there. I am obviously not a deist, so your question “So! Do deists believe Jesus arose from the dead?” is a non-sequitur? Of course not!<br /><br />From the basic belief in some kind of supernatural being, there are obviously a number of differing belief systems as to who He is and what He is like. I explained very clearly that I have examined the claims of Christianity and why I believe they are true. I also explained very clearly why I believe Islam and Mormonism are mistaken, again by scrutinizing their claims. So what is Bob’s reaction? “". It is beginning to sound like, in your mind, someone who believes in an unnamed god is reasonable, but as soon as they give their god a name or identity, it had better be your god's name and identity. This reasoning is suspect.”<br /><br />Just because something is reasonable does not mean it is correct. So I can acknowledge and respect people for their reasoned conclusions (I can even respect people’s somewhat blind and unreasoned faith) but still be convinced that they are mistaken, just as I am convinced that you are mistaken. Obviously, unless you consider theology as some philosophical pastime of no consequence (actually, I suppose you do!) then many of the world’s great religions of history have to be incorrect, because their respective concepts of who God is and what He is like are mutually exclusive. And this is what is so offensive about Christianity in particular, because Jesus did not present Himself as one of many options. He claimed to be God. Either He is God or He is not. He predicted that He would die for the sins of the world and rise from the dead, as His disciples later claimed He did. Either He rose from the dead or He did not. As C.S. Lewis famously said, either He was a lunatic, a liar or Lord of all. He did not leave us another option. And if Jesus is who He said to was, then Mohammed, Joseph Smith or others were deluded at best, charlatans at worst. I don’t take any joy or pride in saying so. I wish it were otherwise, but when you have opposite and irreconcilable world views, somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong, unless maybe you are a polytheist. But that does not mean I can’t respect people who see things differently. I don’t claim moral superiority over anyone.The Maryland Crustaceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309250912148013290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-54365469236831500982010-08-30T10:15:51.569-07:002010-08-30T10:15:51.569-07:00TMC - "Though I can respect Moslems and Mormo...TMC - "Though I can respect Moslems and Mormons, I do not think their belief systems can withstand the tests of reason and logical scrutiny, for the same reason that Christianity does."<br /><br />You said a deist was "entirely reasonable". It is beginning to sound like, in your mind, someone who believes in an unnamed god is reasonable, but as soon as they give their god a name or identity, it had better be your god's name and identity. This reasoning is suspect.<br /><br />TMC - "...Mohammed told a completely different version of the events, borrowing from the NT when convenient, but otherwise relegating Jesus to the status of a minor prophet and having him escape the agony of the cross (and therefore no resurrection.)"<br /><br />So! Do deists believe Jesus arose from the dead?<br /><br />It looks like you consider Mohammed's view of Jesus to be unreasonable. Is that because you know his view is incorrect, or just because it is unbiblical? You seem to view him as unreasonable just because he didn't believe as you believe. Is my perception correct?<br /> <br />Again, why do you say deists are reasonable but Muslims are not?<br /><br />TMC - "Not only was Mohammed's version of events written 600 years after the facts, but of course there was no one else to corroborate what he had to say. People just have to take on faith (or by threat of the sword) that Mohammed's "revelation" was correct."<br /><br />Your description sounds an awful lot like Christianity - The Dark Years.<br /><br />TMC - "Joseph Smith and Mormonism: As far as I know, he is the only one who saw the angel Moroni and also the only one who saw the "Golden Plates" which he claimed to have dutifully translated into the book of Mormon-- with all of its outlandish assertions and made up history (including stories of Jesus coming to North America). All of this "revelation" was in the head of only one man about events that happened 1800+ years prior. No other witnesses, no corroboration."<br /><br />Again, this sound so much like Christianity.<br /><br />Are you telling me that the only reason you became a Christian is because of the corroboration of all the claimed events in the bible with non biblical witnesses?<br /><br />TMC - "I can respect atheists if they have come to their position (1) with intellectual honesty..."<br /><br />Ok, that I have done. After spending 25 years (1/2 of my life) as a bible believer, and based on my own personal experience as a bible believer and bible student, I have concluded that there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that the God of the bible is real.<br /><br />TMC - "...and (2) have thought through their world view and its implications and have carried it through to all of its logical and inevitable conclusions." <br /><br />What does that mean? I get the impression that you know what atheism's "logical and inevitable conclusions" are. Please share.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742473910850953368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-2997537605933288372010-08-29T19:37:48.171-07:002010-08-29T19:37:48.171-07:00The fact is TV, the entire laundry list that you h...The fact is TV, the entire laundry list that you have accepted as being forerunners of Christianity from which the early church borrowed to cobble together some sort of religion was not only debunked, <i>but debunked <b>decades ago</b></i>.<br /><br />It keeps raising it's ugly head every now and again and if one is predisposed to groupthink and the shoe fits, then... <a href="http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/whatmithisnt.htm" rel="nofollow">Link</a>J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-88579709062018508872010-08-29T19:11:34.381-07:002010-08-29T19:11:34.381-07:00So I guess one could reject the belief concerning ...So I guess one could reject the belief concerning the occurance of miracles, but to claim knowledge that they have never occured, ever, in the history of mankind would be unreasonable and illogical.<br /><br />Is that fair?<br /><br /><i>My point is to be aware of the overlap. The Persians practiced the mysteries of Mirthras, and the religion was already well established by 80. This coincides with when the Gospels were written, between 60 and 120. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that there was borrowing</i><br /><br />And I'm going to state that, other than their spellings, there is absolutely no resemblance whatsoever between Persian Mithra and Roman Mithras at all in the way of religious practices, customs and beliefs and they are completely different religions. Completely different in all possible ways.<br /><br />Am I wrong to state as such?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-5052465876801176272010-08-29T17:53:10.262-07:002010-08-29T17:53:10.262-07:00bob asks: "TMC, do you think it "reasona...bob asks: "TMC, do you think it "reasonable" to believe in Allah? How about to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God? Is it reasonable to be an atheist?"<br /><br />Though I can respect Moslems and Mormons, I do not think their belief systems can withstand the tests of reason and logical scrutiny, for the same reason that Christianity does. I won't repeat here what I have already said about the reliability of the NT record. <br /><br />Is Islam reasonable? In contrast to the eye-witness or intra-generational testimony of the Gospel writers, Mohammed told a completely different version of the events, borrowing from the NT when convenient, but otherwise relegating Jesus to the status of a minor prophet and having him escape the agony of the cross (and therefore no resurrection.) He was in effect saying, "Look, those eye-witness accounts from 600 years ago... don't pay any attention to them. Let me tell you what really happened." Not only was Mohammed's version of events written 600 years after the facts, but of course there was no one else to corroborate what he had to say. People just have to take on faith (or by threat of the sword) that Mohammed's "revelation" was correct.<br /><br />Joseph Smith and Mormonism: As far as I know, he is the only one who saw the angel Moroni and also the only one who saw the "Golden Plates" which he claimed to have dutifully translated into the book of Mormon-- with all of its outlandish assertions and made up history (including stories of Jesus coming to North America). All of this "revelation" was in the head of only one man about events that happened 1800+ years prior. No other witnesses, no corroboration.<br /><br />Is it reasonable to be an atheist? Again, I said that everyone has to weigh the evidence for and against, and come to a reasoned conclusion. I can respect atheists if they have come to their position (1) with intellectual honesty and (2) have thought through their world view and its implications and have carried it through to all of its logical and inevitable conclusions.The Maryland Crustaceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309250912148013290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-39816517850774232732010-08-29T17:50:36.295-07:002010-08-29T17:50:36.295-07:00The legendary hypothesis does not hold water for a...The legendary hypothesis does not hold water for a number of reasons. <br /><br />(1) Again, the writings are much too close to the events in question; <br /><br />(2) Their specific allusions to times, dates, places and people, as well as extra-biblical sources that attest to many of the same events, throws the NT completely out of the legend and myth genre. Contrary to what was asserted previously, C.S. Lewis did address that issue head on. A former atheist and a scholar of ancient mythologies, Lewis had said something to the effect (I can't find the quote) that he was well versed in myth and fable and what it looks like, and the New Testament (for many of the reasons I have cited) bears no resemblance to myth or fable; <br /><br />(3) If the NT writers wanted to foist a lie on an unsuspecting world, they would have removed a number of counter-productive elements from their writings. For example, the four Gospels contained differing perspectives on the same story, resulting in what at first glance might seem to be contradictions. Why not remove them? Furthermore, why would they include Jesus' anguished prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, where it seems he is trying to get out of going to the cross? Even though what he was trying to avoid was not so much suffering and death but rather the totally alien condition of losing fellowship with His Father as He took on the sins of the world, the inclusion of these prayers in the Gospels does not make Jesus look like a mythical superhero. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to portray the disciples for the doubting, egotistical, betraying dolts that they appeared to be in the Gospels. Neither does it help their cause to have the first witnesses to the resurrection to be women, who were of such low social standing at the time that their testimony was not admissible in court. Yet all of these details were included in the Gospels, though it would have helped their cause greatly if they modified or deleted them. But they were included for one and only one reason: because they were true.The Maryland Crustaceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309250912148013290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-51053585984997855612010-08-29T16:33:51.250-07:002010-08-29T16:33:51.250-07:00Far be it from me to not admit my ignorance when a...Far be it from me to not admit my ignorance when appropriate. I had never heard of Mithra or Mithraism, so I had to go to our friends at Wikipedia to educate myself.<br /><br />TV asserts: Plutarch (c.40), in the Life of Pompey (writing the same time as Paul), mentions that Mithraism was practiced in Rome as early as 68 C.E.<br /><br />According to our friends at Wiki, it was practiced between the first and fourth centuries. <br /><br />TV then admits: I can't say with certainty that the Gospel authors borrowed, but the pattern is there, and if the shoe fits...<br /><br />To which I must ask, what pattern are you talking about, because for the life of me I cannot see the faintest or slightest connection betweeen the cult of Mithraism and Christianity. Again, according to our friends at Wiki:<br /><br />"The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a remark in the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite. Based upon this, Ernest Renan in 1882 set forth a vivid depiction of two rival religions: 'if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic'."<br /><br />So after Christianity is well established, Justin Martyr accuses the Mithraists of diabolically parodying the Christian sacrament of communion, and this is supposed to suggest that CHristianity borrowed from Mithraism?<br /><br />I must in any event go back to the argument of looking at the NT records in their totality, written openly by and about a number of people within a generation of the events, at a time when detractors could have easily debunked any of their claims. Even supposing that Mithraism came about simultaneously as a rival to Christianity, it makes no sense to suggest that the latter borrowed from the former.<br /><br />I can see it now. Peter and John and the other apostles, unlearned fisherman, were somehow well up to speed on all the latest cults and writings, including Mithraism. I can imagine Peter saying,<br /><br />"Hey, John. How has the fishing been going? You know, I am still bummed out about them crucifying Jesus. I have been trying to lay low since then. But hey, I just came up with this great idea. I was getting bored mending the nets so I started reading about this Mithra god. It's a new religion. Pretty cool stuff. So I was thinking. Let's make up our own religion. Let's steal and hide Jesus' body and say He rose from the dead. We can start a big following. If we don't piss off the Romans, we will at least really stick it to the Phraisees. They will haul us off to the Sanhedrin and flog the crap out of us, but wouldn't it be really cool if we could make this new religion stick? If we get enough of a following, maybe we can even convert some of them too, like that Saul of Tarsus dude, the dyed-in-the-wool Pharisee. If we can convince him enough, maybe we can get him to travel around the Roman world (he's got connections, you know, because he is a Roman citizen) and he can convince everyone else.<br /><br />In the end, all of us are going to get the crap beaten out of us, burned at the stake, fed to the lions or crucified upside down, but our names will go down in history. We will even have cathedrals named after us. Pretty cool, huh?<br /><br />So what do you say guys, are you in or not?"The Maryland Crustaceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309250912148013290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-21823264825855189872010-08-29T16:33:05.836-07:002010-08-29T16:33:05.836-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Maryland Crustaceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309250912148013290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-21228000306578576012010-08-29T16:32:30.654-07:002010-08-29T16:32:30.654-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Maryland Crustaceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309250912148013290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6375734216588111141.post-28506302525734278752010-08-28T23:13:54.799-07:002010-08-28T23:13:54.799-07:00JD said: "So you would basically agree that a...JD said: "So you would basically agree that an argument that basically consisted of..."<br /><br />"Being that I, TV, have never witnessed water being turned to wine, nor am I privy to any studies in which it actually had, that means that it has never, ever happened before in the history on mankind"..<br /><br />No JD... I believe what I said (and you quoted but misread) was:<br /><br />What I am saying... is in the course of human events not a single proved, tested, and tried miracle has been cataloged. And so to date we don't have miracles of the sort the Bible talks about... thus there's no reason to automatically assume there was<br /><br />Let me put it this way...<br /><br />"Being that I, nor anybody else, have *ever witnessed water being turned to wine, or for that matter any other miracle resembling those contained in the dubious Biblical account, nor am I privy to any studies in which it actually have investigate such claims critically in which the miracles were proved beyond the reason of a doubt to be the only logical (and probable) conclusion, and moreover, historians and scientists have not yet found a trustworthy account of miracles which could not also be explained via natural means, and furthermore, did not crumble under exacting scrutiny, it is fairly safe to assume that miracles have not likely occurred. <br /><br />"Also, since we have no evidence of actual miracles happening prior to the history of mankind, and since the standard historical model, as accepted by contemporary historians, does not readily predict miracles, it is safe to assume that all testimony surrounding the total sum of miraculous encounters, and for which reliable evidence is lacking, are to be judged with a healthy serving of salt."<br /><br />That's how I would have worded it. But that's just me. You can believe in miracles without the evidence if you'd like... but that would merely be a devotional belief... *not historical knowledge.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.com