391. 380.
Peter

You admonish us to mind our own business.
You have become the business...bad business. You have lost your credibility, you cannot distinguish between compliment and insult, how are we supposed to tell if you know anything about religion when you have demonstrated a loss of understanding of life?

It would appear the bitch is you, a silly punk-ass bitch.

mac at 10:13PM on Jun 13th 2008
----------------------------------
mac, I allmost fell out of my chair when I read that one, too funny.

Did you ever find a TKD school.

I'm testing next Saturday for my next level.

Observant at 10:46PM on Jun 13th 2008

392. Zowie Doherty, your web-site is equivalent to Ada's god-tube blog page from this past February. Thanks for creating a delightfully stupid web-site.

JefFlyingV at 10:51PM on Jun 13th 2008

393. brian little b were are you?

Observant at 10:51PM on Jun 13th 2008

394.
323. Brandon; based on a conversation I had with Preter about marriage, I am assuming he's a kid with some education but limited life experience.

I never got the sense he's malicious. Except for today with the holocaust denier bit. I think he just has a world view he's committed to and a few cherry picked facts and he really wants to make it fit, but can't see the forest for the trees.

He's not evil like Renzo.
Ryan



-LOL
Well I wouldn't say that Renzo is evil. He hasn't made claims of atheists burning in hell (unless I missed it)

I believe Preter got mad at Peter and condemned him to hell for not believing or blaspheming Jesus. I thought he was ok until I saw that. To know someone will burn in eternity with such certainty for denying Jesus is just plain dumb. I guess I also missed him denying the holocaust, what post was it?
goddess1prevail






Peter @ 345
You are so obviously filled with hate. Were you one of those little boys whose prayers never got answered as Observant suggest? If you would have bothered to read my post right you would have known that I originally thought PV was ok until he condemned YOU to hell. Then I was inquiring about the post where PV DENIES the holocaust. There are no mistakes in my post and there is nothing to apologize for, you are the one scanning these posts searching for your next attack.

If you would have read the posts prior and after mine you would have caught on to the whole conversation which revolved around PV's ideas.


"If the delusional goddess1prevail wishes to explain and clarify her comments that is fine, the rest of you busy bodies should shut up about it and mind your business, it wasn't directed at you."




First of al this is a public blog and if you want people not to comment on your posts then you should shut up and go away. The only reason the DELUSIONAL goddess explained is to show my buddies what a simpleton you are.

And to clarify I am a born and raised agnostic who also denies the divinity of Jesus and bible dogma. I base my beliefs on my travels (trust me I've been just about everywhere) and rely on the sciences that are archeology, linguistics, etymology, anthropology and astrology. I've also studied ancient religions, temple cult practice, warfare, inventions, and in many cases have visited these ancient sites and temples of worship. You ain't got shit on me Peter......

I won't condemn you to hell since I too deny its existence though I do believe you to be as simple as a single celled ameba. I don't think it would be difficult to scientifically prove that.

goddess1prevail at 10:58PM on Jun 13th 2008

395. brian little b were are you?


He has been gone for a while huh?

goddess1prevail at 11:01PM on Jun 13th 2008

396. Oy vey Tom... know who you are talking about.

For starters, Josephus was born in 37 CE. That's seven years after Jesus died, so it would have been impossible for Josephus to have first hand accounts of Jesus.

Secondly, yes Josephus was a jew, until he was captured during the roman-jewish war and promptly renounced his faith and loyalty to judaism in submission to the romans. So his integrity is obviously not his highest priority.

Thirdly, all accounts of Josephus come through christian sources, even those of arabic origins. Josephus' "account" of Jesus has been widely regarded as a forgery since as early as 1700... why? Because it was written implying first hand knowledge which was impossible given that he was born seven years after Jesus' alleged time of death. In addition it was writen in 100 CE, seventy years after Jesus' death and at a time where christianity was gaining wide popularity.

Do a little research before you drop names.

Somber at 11:02PM on Jun 13th 2008

397. Hi Goddess,

Glad to see you back on. I had wanted to mention earlier today (I just don't post much), how much I enjoyed your posts on early Christian history and various myths. While I consider myself a believer, I'm not overly concerned about ideology and historicity. I'm Mormon as I've mentioned before, but not orthodox--so I'm not sure where I fit in.

Anyway, I would be interested in some references you could point me to.

Best, LtL

Lloyd the Lurker at 11:16PM on Jun 13th 2008

398. Jopsephus mentions Jesus twice in his Antiquities. One passage (the Testimonium: by the way, the Testimonium Flavium IS NOT a work by Josephus distinct from the Antiquities, as some on this blog apparently think; rather, it denotes a particular passage about Jesus in the Antiquities) certainly contains interpolations, but it is not at all clear that the entire passage is a forgery. There are strong arguments on both sides in this respect, though I of course admit that there is little or no serious debate concerning the presence of later Christian interpolations.

The second mention in the Antiquities is much less controversial, and most scholars consider it to be authentic (e.g. because it's mentioned by Origen, because of its language and grammer, because of its context and relationship to the passages around it, because of its lack of controversial claims about Jesus -- excepting the words "who was called Christ" --, etc).

Now, of course Josephus isn't a "first hand" source, but that's not really that important. Anyone who has studied history academically knows that we have very, very few "first hand" accounts of most of the historical people and events that we accept unproblematically. Indeed, if most posters on this blog would think for just a moment, and attempt to evaluate other historical figures according to the criteria they want to establish for Jesus' historicity, they would realize that their criteria would effectively wipe out entire fields of ancient and classical scholarship.

And please, stop citing sites like "no-beliefs" and "infidels" as if they're simply presenting disinterested, scholarly evaluations of the historical data. Honestly, that would be like me citing "reasonable faith" as an unbiased source. Now, don't misunderstand me: I've no problem engaging the arguments presented on sites like "infdels," and I'm not trying to poison the well. Rather, I'm taking issue with the notion that these sites present disinterested analyses of the relevant issues. Obviously, they do not, no more than "reasonable faith" does.

Renzo at 11:33PM on Jun 13th 2008

399. Thanks to all who mentioned that they understood my post. I knew I wasn't crazy.....




Hi Lloyd,
Well what is it you believe in? If not the idea or the history what compels you to remain a Mormon? Please also explain what makes mormon doctrine so different. That is one thing I have never studied.
What I find interesting with Christians today is that they are breaking away from traditional Christian roots in the sense that they are letting go of the myths and superstitions and are relating to the message that Jesus sends in the gospels. Most of my friends who are Christians don't accept the death and resurrection as literal nor do they don't believe in angels or demons, rather they believe that love thy neighbor was the best moral taught in the new testament. Studies done by Barna group, a theological research center that studies Christian believes, also shows high percentage Christians who have lost belief in the fundamental roots of what is Christian theology.

goddess1prevail at 11:32PM on Jun 13th 2008

400.
Observant

I have not found my school yet. I have, however decided o use my library of lesson plans.
I have about three years of teaching, I have some of my notes, some approved by the grand master himself. I see no reason why I can't work on myself in this manner until I find my niche...It took me a while to see what was in front my face, sadly.
On a good note, I've dropped a few of those pounds I had accummilated, a few more and I'll be ready to fight...fight very small people, no one to tough... lol

peter mirror image at 11:34PM on Jun 13th 2008

401. And to add to Somber's post no one quoted Josephus Testimonium until Eusebius in 425 AD which is who many think forged the testimonium. (Eusebius wrote of necessary falsehoods)
When Origen quoted him some 200 years earlier he claimed that he could not believe Josephus would mention Jesus as the brother of James but did not accept him to be the savior. If Josephus was not a forgery Origen would have seen the Testimonium Flavianum a few pages back and used that as proof for Jesus's existence and divinity. That is damming evidence.


Of for a smoke break........

goddess1prevail at 11:36PM on Jun 13th 2008

402. I do agree with you there Renzo


Jesus might have grounds in history but not as a divine figure.

goddess1prevail at 11:39PM on Jun 13th 2008

403. I've posted this elsewhere, and as an atheist, I'm in believers thoughts:
"My question is if there were a god, a perfect god, then would god have any choice or will? Choice implies the measurement of one thing against another, and then proceeding with what appears best. It also implies that one could be influenced toward one choice or another. But, if god were omniscient and all powerful, then doubt and being influenced is not possible. Then, how is choice possible? If there is an inability to choose, wouldn't that preempt intelligence and will? Would god therefore be a part of nature and not a being actively "deciding" on anything? It seems the idea of god as a willful sentient being is self-contradictory."

I know some here have been making assertions about science in defense of their faith. I am curious. Would you be as comfortable making these claims in an auditorium full of evolutionary biologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc? Would you be open to being shown incorrect?
Some have posed that intelligent design/creation make sense, because certain things are 'impossible'. Why do you then credit a creator in doing the impossible whose methods you do not know, and who believers readily admit they cannot comprehend? Why do you not allow for the first, and allow for the second? Why are you searching for an evidence based god? If evidence is important then where does that place the importance of your faith? Would you still believe without "evidence". If you would believe without evidence doesn't this reveal you biased against it?
A yes or no answer will suffice for most of these questions, but answer as you wish.

S at 11:44PM on Jun 13th 2008

404. Goddess,

You've probably guessed (as I sense in your questions) that while I wouldn't say that I'm over struggling with my faith, I am certainly questioning many parts of it. Like you, I find the moral teachings of Christ to be worth adhering to.

When I said that ideology and historicity were not as important to me, I was definitely referring to the abandonment of believing something for its own sake or as proof of something. For example, I see the creation myth as not only a creation myth, but as a metaphor for a pre-existent life--an accepted Mormon belief (granted, I'm sure to get flak from many people that there is no such thing as souls living before this life), but the point of the story beyond whether it's true or real or not, is the familial nature of the human species. That to me is the important thing.

Before Joseph Smith was killed in the 1840s, he was apparently working on the idea of what it meant to be brothers and sisters. The idea that we lived as offspring of deity before being born can be a powerful metaphor (whether you believe it or not) of how we ought to treat one another while we're alive on this earth. Extending that idea into our daily lives means, to me, what do I do not only in my relationships, but in my profession, and all else that I do, that leads me to treat all people I meet as my brothers and sisters. I'm not good at explaining this, but that's one of the things that is important to me and is something that I believe.

Another thing that is important to me is the social group. Mormons are my "tribe," if you want to call it that, and I don't mean that exclusively, even though we are sometimes taken to task for being rather insular and caring only for our own. When you add in the idea I mentioned earlier, my tribe really is a mechanism that I and others can use to reach out to the larger community in service. It serves as a microcosm for how the larger society should be.

Another fascinating concept is what is called Consecration and Stewardship that was practiced by Mormons for a time in the mid 19th century. This is a communitarian system of wealth distribution that I find quite compelling. It's a system where people deed their property essentially to the church, but then take back according to their needs and their desires as stewards. It's a sort of collective management system so to speak, and something I'd like to be involved with, although no one is practicing it now.

I'm quite aware of all the historical issues surrounding the Mormon experience, especially the Book of Mormon. My more orthodox friends and family would take me to task for this, but I'm again less concerned about the historicity of the BofM than I am with what it says about relationships, living well, serving man and God, and so forth. For example, one of my favorite phrases is "when you are in the service of your fellow man, you are only in the service of your God" (not quite sure I got the quote quite right).

I guess those are a few of the things I "believe" in. Not sure that I did it much justice, but am certainly willing to discuss this more at length for anyone who is interested.

Enough for tonight though! Getting late on the east coast here...

Lloyd the Lurker at 11:58PM on Jun 13th 2008

405. "I'm in believers thoughts" should read "I'm interested in believers thoughts", and "doesn't this reveal you biased against it?" should read "doesn't this reveal your biased against it?"

S at 12:03AM on Jun 14th 2008