Oh Christ!!

[Minimalist]

A nice speech, Monk, (in fact, the only person who has done it better is Arch) but lots of people have willingly been cut open, burned alive, or cut others open or burned them alive) because it was part of their religion. A religion which you would doubtlessly consider 'false' while clinging to your's as 'true.'

You understate the power of any culture to instill its ideals. Religion is a factor of geography. It is not a 'journey of discovery' it is shoved into the heads of the young while they are unable to resist.

I'll have to go looking for those alternative views on persecution. As R/W hinted above, you will never get that from sticking to "orthodox" authorities.

[Forum Monk]

A nice speech, Monk, (in fact, the only person who has done it better is Arch)

Well, I would try harder the next time, but we all know what happended to him.

You understate the power of any culture to instill its ideals. Religion is a factor of geography. It is not a 'journey of discovery' it is shoved into the heads of the young while they are unable to resist.

I agree with you on this, 100%. I wasn't speaking of religion. In many ways I'm as anti-religious as Dawkins.

I'll have to go looking for those alternative views on persecution. As R/W hinted above, you will never get that from sticking to "orthodox" authorities.

When it comes to the origins of religon or their claims, you have never referenced an orthodox authority. So I am not surprised by this statement.

[Minimalist]

you have never referenced an orthodox authority.

"Orthodox" authorities will NEVER ask embarassing questions.
That's what the word means.

In order to seek out the truth ( as differentiated from the propaganda ) one needs to look outside the box.

That's true of everything.

[ravenwing5910]

Which one of you is willing to die for the fact the Roman Emperors had Christianity fabricated to create a better Pax Romana? And yet if you support these kinds of claims you are in effect saying, thousands if not millions through the centuries have willingly died to perpetuate a lie.

Monk, having never been faced with a situation in which I might be killed for my beliefs it is impossible to honestly answer the first part of this question. As for the multitude of people who have died for "their" beliefs, (and there are many more that kill to support their faith, and I am not talking about just Islam, I am talking about any organized religion). Because a person believes something fully doesn't in itself make that thing true. I am not all together an athiest, I am what you might call agnostic. That said, back to the question of dying for my beliefs, I can say that I would fight to the death to insure your right and anyone elses right to believe what you will. If you have faith that is great, I do not, I have questions and without solid emperical evidence, I don't believe they can be answered.
P.S I am not concerned about being banned, I am more concerned about causing offense.

[Beagle]

I am a known secularist on this board. I rarely make comment on these discussions as they can never be discussed dispassionately for very long.

As far as any thought being given to a plot by a Roman Emperor to create a reiligion, Occams razor has to be invoked here. Besides, to balance the equation in this discussion - there is no historical evidence.

The Bible should be able to be discussed like any ancient text. But never is.


*What is this talk about being banned?

[Minimalist]

Japanese pilots willingly dove their planes into American ships because they considered it their duty to die for the Emperor...a god in Shinto.

Muslim fanatics wrap themselves with explosives and blow themselves to smithereens for Allah.

Some Hindu wives burn themselves alive when their husbands die for Shiva.

People do all sorts of stupid shit in the name of god.

[Minimalist]

The Bible should be able to be discussed like any ancient text. But never is.

That's because some people cannot treat it "like any ancient text."

On one of my other boards someone posted a link about a school in Texas (of all places) which is trying to institute just such a course. One can only imagine what that will turn into. I'll see if I can find the link.

[Forum Monk]

Well, good, since we are in a confessional mood today: My moniker, Monk has nothing to do with religion. One day hunched over a keyboard wearing a "hoodie", thinking of a name to use while signing up for a forum, my daughter entered the room and said "Daddy, what are doing, you look like a monk". The rest is unorthodox history.

Later, I entered this forum, proclaiming my position on Christianity, because Arch, Marduk and Min where blasting away and I thought it better to proclaim my view point up front and further announce I had no drum to beat. My interest was history, science and archaeology. But I knew there would be times when I would speak about religious matters I didn't want anyone thinking I was there to evangelize or make converts. Little did I know Arch would be banned within days, of my acceptance to the board and some actually thought I was Arch, resurrected. It took me weeks to gain some measure of respectability.

People can be agnostic, atheist or what ever they want, I don't care. R/W, you say you want impirical evidence?...sorry, there is none. People want physical proof, measurements? They're never to be had. And many of the greatest minds of all time have examined the little evidence there is, and you know what, most of them disagreed with the agnostics and atheists.

A lot of people die for their country, die for their religon, die for their convictions, but very, very few will die for a known lie. The act is considered stupid only when you do not believe the same as they. There are some who would think your willingness to kill or die for American ideals is stupid.

I am not inclined to speak of faith, as I've said many times, I am not an apologist nor Biblical scholar. I really don't think it belongs on this board, because IMO the nature of true faith is so immeasuable or unscientific it can never be defended within that context. I personally don't put ANY faith in religious rituals and practices and I will not defend them.

So ends my confession.

As for being banned, most boards of this type have strict rules about religous type debates. I went looking for the code of conduct here a few minutes ago, but strangely, couldn't find them. Oh well forget I said anything about banned.

I apologize for my "sensitivity" today.

[Digit]

If the new Jewish sect was created at Rome's behest Monk they must have come to regret it later as they only swapped one troublesome group for another from their viewpoint.
Politics, at least, don't seem to change much.

[Forum Monk]

The Bible should be able to be discussed like any ancient text. But never is.

That's because some people cannot treat it "like any ancient text."

One of the big problems I see, Min, is much of the evidence you present is cleverly designed to be irrefutable. For example, claiming that Josephus was altered by Christians can always be defended by saying other documents were altered by Christians and so the straw men are set up ad infinitum. In the mean time not a single shred of actual evidence is presented to support the claim. It is conjectured because an "arab" version was found with altered text. No possiblility that it was altered by "arabs" though, right?

Another example, the claim, that Luke copied from Josephus. Again, the evidence can be interpreted in many ways but is narrowed focused into a position by an author who is a proclaimed atheist and as such has an associated agenda.

[Forum Monk]

If the new Jewish sect was created at Rome's behest Monk they must have come to regret it later as they only swapped one troublesome group for another from their viewpoint.
Politics, at least, don't seem to change much.

Yeah, and this Jewish sect, at that time, had no love loss for Jews nor vise-versa. The idea, that Rome needed to create a peaceful sect to balance a troublesome one, must mean, that Rome saw the tiny Jewish state as a major problem to its authority. Its possible I suppose, but the voraciousness they exhibited in annhilating the jewish nation probably more than balanced the threat.

[Digit]

I don't know if Arch still reads this forum but it's a case of he's gone but not forgotten and I have to say that standing by the insurportable weakens what may be a genuine cause.
According to an article I read the other day the Quaran says the Mohammed taught that the sun disappears at the end of each day down a well and followers insist that the Quaran is the literal word of Allah.
Nuff said?

[Minimalist]

One of the big problems I see, Min, is much of the evidence you present is cleverly designed to be irrefutable.

As opposed to the bible? Which is declared to be the WORD of GOD with no evidence to sustain it, either?

Justin Martyr (100-165) in spite of the fact that he was familiar with Josephus' work, makes no reference to the Testimoniam Flavianum. This despite the fact that Dialog with Trypho is a discussion with a Jew about the messiah and the TF would have come in handy.

When Origen (185- c 254) writes extensively in Against Celsus he refers to Josephus' work. He does not refer to the Testimoniam Flavianum. In fact, at one point he declares that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

In fact, there are no references in early christian literature until Eusebius (c 275-339) around 330 wrote:

Eusebius:
According to Eusebius in 'The History of the Church' (HC), 1, 11, published around 330:
"After giving this account of John,
[which Eusebius had just quoted, word by word, as "found in Antiquities Book XVIII"]
` in the same part of his work
[and NOT two chapters earlier, as the TF is located now!]
` he [Josephus] goes on to speak as follows of our Saviour: ... [the TF follows]"
the Jesus' passage was indicated to immediately follow Josephus' testimony about John the Baptist (Ant., XVIII, V, 2) which I quote below, so my readers can compare it with the content and style of the Testimonium:

Now, Eusebius is a man who is on record as having said:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2), which puts his conduct into question when it comes to truthfulness.

However, I dispute your assertion that these arguments are meant to be irrefutable. Perhaps if you read Justin and Origen you will find references to the TF that other scholars missed.

[ravenwing5910]

It seems to me that we (humans) are unable to carry on a discussion of religion for the simple reason that people on both sides of the issue will at some point take offense. At which point the discussion will turn into a "is to, is not" argument. As I said in an earlier post I had registered in a near eastern religions class that was described as "a history of the development of the three major world religions". That class shortly devolved into what I describe as a 'bible thumping' session, so I dropped it. You are right Monk, there is no evidence to support faith, and as far as I know there is no evidence to disprove the bible either, as any history book, depending on the perspective of the writers will have discrepencies, that doesnt make it untrue, just as a popular belief won't make it true. I would like to be able to find a forum, a class in which people could put aside their own personal beliefs in order to do justice to the pursuit of learning. I could start listing my questions, and perhaps you guys could try to answer them, and I know wars have been fought over less. but could we try?

[Minimalist]

If the new Jewish sect was created at Rome's behest Monk they must have come to regret it later as they only swapped one troublesome group for another from their viewpoint.
Politics, at least, don't seem to change much.

Yeah, and this Jewish sect, at that time, had no love loss for Jews nor vise-versa. The idea, that Rome needed to create a peaceful sect to balance a troublesome one, must mean, that Rome saw the tiny Jewish state as a major problem to its authority. Its possible I suppose, but the voraciousness they exhibited in annhilating the jewish nation probably more than balanced the threat.

The Great Revolt of 66 caused the Romans to move nearly one quarter of their army to Judaea. Their primary mission of that army was to defend against an attack from Parthia (Persia) to the east along the normal trade routes from Mesopotamia.

It seems cheaper to create a new idea that would bring the province to within acceptable limits. Let's not forget that by this time the Roman Cult of Sol Invictus ( Mithraism) was virtually indistinguishable from christianity in basic teachings. The one major difference was that Mithraism was not availabe to women, slaves and the lower rungs of society.

The point is that organized religion (the very quintessential definition of The Club) is not in the least bit interested in exploring its roots or origins. They claim that question is already answered and they react with predictable fury at anyone who dares question 'gospel.'

I guess that why I am so fascinated by the subject and constantly seek to get deeper into it.