391. 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

392. 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

393. 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

394.
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

395. 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

396. 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

397. 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

398. 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

399. "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

400. Haven't these highly respected scholars spoken to Clif Kulpen and William Hays? When will these published scientists begin to listen to Clif Kulpen and William Hays?

Renzo at 9:31PM on Jun 13th 2008

xxx

We listen to published scientists. You don't unless it to attempt to distort something to support your superstitions.

xxxxx

This is not a scientific symposium, or even a blog for scientifically informed people. Far from it.

It is a blog populated by religious fringe elements and hosted by a religious extremist. His use of 'darwinian' and yours occurs here many times and is used as an attempt to draw a discussion on evolution out of the twenty first century and the science of molecular genetics into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which is the last time any of the preacher silliness you take as fact was updated.

You do the same thing with the 'big bang', acting as though the bulk of the scientific community had never heard of it and Hoyle's Steady State theory was still prevalent. Most of you never heard of inflation, the higgs field, the standard model, m-theory, nothing that's come along since the seventies. Some genius even disputes Einstein.
It's a typical ploy of desperation since you aren't' well educated enough in science basics to improve your understanding, or you have one humongous psychological block against understanding.

Also, I'd speculate that many of you take comfort in ignorance and misinformation or religion wouldn't be very attractive to you.

It's the same old game that's always attempted here - frame an argument against science as it was in 1920 so you have some wiggle room for your superstitions.

On evolution, it's a little late, like with the flat earth.

Clif Kuplen at 12:10AM on Jun 14th 2008

401. ATHEIST

More Stupidity.

Reply to: 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 (end)

The problem which you have ignored....

is the nature of the Christian accounts.

they're propaganda for an End of the World cult based on resurrection.

They contain accounts of exorcism, demons moving into herds of swine, angels, the raising of Lazarus... in short, the beliefs of the Pharisees which were rejected by mainline Judaism.

In other words, the gospel accounts are NOT CREDIBLE.

the other histories you refer to... are NOT propaganda from a resurrection cult.

Grow up. Start THINKING.

I'm not asking for the world. I want you to ADMIT that a "good news" about a man who came back to life after being dead for three days... was just a way to SELL memberships in a resurrection cult.

It's NOT that difficult a concept.

THINK.

William Hays at 12:14AM on Jun 14th 2008

402. I lied. One more quick post, then off to bed. The post by S #399 got me thinking about another cool Mormon theory or belief (OK, cool at least to me!). And that is the idea of eternal progression. While many Mormons ascribe omniscience and omnipotence as attributes to God, I don't think we mean quite what traditional christianity means by that--at least that's how I think it was in our earlier history. We seem to be moving more toward a more traditional view on that lately (which, I think coincides with the rightward movement politically of many Mormons the last 50 years).

At any right, eternal progression isn't just limited to us humans, but is something God experiences as well (I again acknowledge that many more orthodox Mormons would shy away from this). So, to sort of answer S's post, I don't see God being strait-jacketed at all. There are an eternity of choices and paths.

Another thing I like about Mormonism (I'm not this excited about everything, mind you) is that I think it's the ultimate humanistic religion. Where else can you go that claims that us mere humans can be as God. I know that is going to sound strange to many of you, and I know that the conservative Christians (in fact most Christians) totally reject this and use this as one reason for claiming that Mormons aren't Christians, which is fine.

But think about it for a second. Why wouldn't God want his children to be like him, to have what he has? I find this a compeling and beautiful idea. So, I find the idea of multiple universes also compelling for that reason. I'm sure many of you will discount this, and I know that many of you will damn me to hell for this, but there you have it. Goddess asked and who am I to not answer?

By the way, Mormons don't believe in hell either--I certainly don't. That's another story...

:)

Peace everybody

Lloyd the Lurker at 12:15AM on Jun 14th 2008

403. 2. or, the more relevant relevant question:

Can a pseudo-intellectual product of caste systems, with a superiority complex, say anything that matters?

America's Most Gangsta at 9:23AM on Jun 12th 2008
--------------
BRAVO!!!!!!!!

robert at 12:47AM on Jun 14th 2008

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

At last some honesty from mac.


"Atheists, you are all losers. Keep destroying each other with your venom, I love it, lol!" - Tom B

Another warm comment from the christian Tom B. fulfilling his mythical god's orders to be nasty.


"God bless you, Peter with His Tender Love and Mercy." - Michael

How dare you say that horrific statement to me. You are vile and evil for doing so. I wouldn't want anything to do with that mass murdering free will stealing monster you call god, just as I wouldn't want anything to do with Bush, Hitler, or Ted Bundy - their crimes against humanity out shadow any good that they might have done in their lives before they became monsters. They are all evil although they don't compare to the evil of your mythical god, he or it is in a league on it's own. Assuming it exists which it doesn't which makes the followers of that mythical god and other mythical gods responsible for their actions in their various cults names. How dare you insult me like that. How repugnant that statement is "EvilVileOverload blesses you". How evil of you.


"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?" - mac

I know enough about religion to know how dangerous it and other forms of belief are such as Nasism, Communism, Bushism, Cheneyism, Castroism, and many other forms of repugnant beliefs that mass murderers use to justify killing people. Fortunately I learned from my grandfathers about the true nature of war - WWI and WWII - and from the point of view of both sides! Religion is vile and evil. Your mythica god is the worst mass killer that humans align with in their beliefs.

Only a few compliments have been made here and via email since I started rearing my ugly mug and asshole of an attitude here. Yes, for telling you the straight dope about your delusions and dementia I expect some of you might consider me an asshole - so be it.

One need not know much about religion to know it's false and pointless. Learning a bit more and it's easy to see how evil and vile it is even when it's trying to be nice - it's still pernicious and slithers in and eventually poisoning things and people and relationships.

One only need take the bath tub test to see that jesus could not have walked on water and conclude that if he existed he was a con man plying his trade with marks like you folks who are so easy to trick with leaps of faith and simple tricks any competent magician can perform. You are delusional fools if you think that jesus walked on water. Fill your bath tub with water and step into it. You'll sink to the floor of the tub proving that jesus would have sunk as well. No one can violate the Laws of Nature. You've not proven that jesus was a fraud in your bath tub!!!

As for life. I deeply and profoundly understand and comprehend life and death. You people think that you can say anything to support your religion and ignore anything that is said to you with impunity. There is a cost to you and others in your life for your willful ignoring of facts of life which are essential to maximize your life in the here and now which is all there ever is or ever will be: now. When you die you're gone forever, dust in the wind, no more consciousness. Just blammo, gone. Just splat, gone. Just, oh last breath, gone. No more. No hope for an afterlife. Reality is a harsh mistress. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but someone has to drum it into you idiots so that you don't destroy our lives in the here and now with your faith based dogma.

I pity all you faith fools. Those of you who fail to learn and it's apparent who you are on this blog - that also includes Dinesh - I have contempt for you since you actually and willfully dumb down your brains with beliefs in that which you know can't possibly be true in your hearts.


"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." - Ryan

Again you continue to propagate false statements. Evil.

I'm not malicious. I indent NO harm to anyone. It's you people who deny the facts of life with your delusional dementia in the unproven and - as you claim - the unprovable that are the ones who cause harm. It is you who need to be watched for signs of being unbalanced.

What cherry picked facts are that? Pick any aspect of your stupid myth of god and there will be facts of life to reveal the lies within your myth. You have a really bad myth you see, one that is ripe with lies ready for the plucking. It's just that the long history the con men have had lets them build in defenses that hing upon your inability to be critical once you've accepted their spoon fed beliefs into your brains. After that you are as good as zombies from The Night of The Living Dead.

I hate to be the one to tell you goddess1prevail but NO ONES PRAYERS are ever answered. It's only your delusional minds that makes you interpret events that was. It's simply your world view of magic and spirits that has you believing in miracles and prayers.

"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."

Well you could have written your post clearly so that the person you were referring to wasn't ambiguous. It can be read both ways as evidenced from my reading and your assertion of intending it to be read the other way.

PV is well within his evil and vile belief system as a christian to condemn me to hell as that is what the bible orders. This is the point that I'm making, chrisitians - if they follow the bible and the teachings of preachers throughout america and elsewhere - MUST commit genocide, MUST rape, MUST NOT PRAY IN GROUPS, MUST murder children, etc... - IT SAYS SO IN YOUR BIBLE!!! To do otherwise is to condemn yourselves to hell for disobeying gods and jesuses orders.

Fine you won't apologize, then at least repost with my name removed so it's clear that your comments are focused upon PerVerted. Or rewrite it so it's clear and repost it. Thanks.

I'm actually glad to see that some of you don't like or agree with PerVerted. He seems to be the most unlikable type with a deep set dementia with morals that border on Hitler's or Bundy's or Bush's.

Fine I'm an asshole simpleton. That's why I can invent simple systems that produce complex results with guaranteed results. That's how I can work in the high tech and science industries with excellent results. Maybe asshole, but simpleton, nah that just doesn't fit. Sorry.

But then again if the bath tub test won't satisfy you faith freaks then I must be a simpleton since it is enough to satisfy not just be but many people I know. Maybe it is the simplest of tests of reality that can prove your religion false and shift some of you back to reality from your delusional dementia leaps of faith. People can't walk on water!!! Nature prevents it!!! Thus jesus didn't walk on water - he was a con man if he existed, and a prop in a cult regardless.

I wouldn't want to get shit on you as that is unsanitary not to mention disgusting.

You have a truly wicked sense of humor. I'm a single celled creature with an asshole shitting over the faith freaks! Wow...

You rely on "astrology"; that shows that you are a nut job as well.

I'm glad that you won't condemn me to the mythical hell. There is enough condemnation on Earth caused by people and their whacked out beliefs and faiths including the vile evils of nationalism.

"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." - Renzo the delusional person who never answers questions addressed to him.

Renzo, then stop citing the bible as it's a biased source!

The site you mention are valid criticisms and offer interesting information contesting the so called facts of religion. I'll reference whatever material I please thank you very much. Please answer my questions that you've skipped over in the other comments.

"In other words, the gospel accounts are NOT CREDIBLE. The other histories you refer to... are NOT propaganda from a resurrection cult. Grow up. Start THINKING.THINK." - William Hayes.

The problem William Hayes it that they've been in their resurrection cult for so long that they don't know what thinking is, let alone what critical thinking is or how to do it to their own thoughts. Their religion prevents them from going there at all.

Faith freaks and sweet zombie jesus followers (and other theists) give up your death cult following mythical god who has a zombie for a son.

Choose life in the here and now.

Peter at 2:50AM on Jun 14th 2008

405. That should read "NOW" not "not".

"One only need take the bath tub test to see that jesus could not have walked on water and conclude that if he existed he was a con man plying his trade with marks like you folks who are so easy to trick with leaps of faith and simple tricks any competent magician can perform. You are delusional fools if you think that jesus walked on water. Fill your bath tub with water and step into it. You'll sink to the floor of the tub proving that jesus would have sunk as well. No one can violate the Laws of Nature. You've NOW proven that jesus was a fraud in your bath tub!!!"

Peter at 2:53AM on Jun 14th 2008