What am I if I think Jesus was the best moral teacher ever but am indifferent re his divinity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a PP - former Catholic, now an atheist. If archaeologists can unearth artifacts from prehistoric days, certainly they would have discovered primary accounts of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. There are many stories stemming from pagan beliefs, however, that share common themes with the life of Jesus - virgin birth, death, resurrection, magical skills.

Once upon a time - long before we had the scientific method - we thought that gods controlled nature. Did you even think about the phrase, Acts of God, found in insurance claims? These many gods controlled too many groups of people who were able to be unified under one god. Remember that leaders once upon a time were the direct line to God - similar to a priest's role when he absolves you of your sins.

So these many gods were combined into one. And while the Hebrew god, Yaweh, became "the God," Yaweh is rooted in Asherah, which was a pagan goddess.

I could go on and on, especially about the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, which was most likely another story, but I'll end it here.

Groundhog! You're still here pushing Horus and his golden penis, and Mithras, being born from a rock and staying a bull!

I feel sorry for anybody who has such an absolutist view of the world that they are unable to contemplate any supernatural, extra-scientific presence in our lives. I don't care if you reject Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Wicca.

I do find this dogmatic atheist viewpoint extreme in its own rigidity of thought.

Rigidity is being forced to live by ancient rules.

That doesn't define me at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

There is evidence to support that Josephus' account was later inserted by Christians. Similarly, Tacitus, scholars claim, simply reiterated what he heard from Christians. There may also be confusion between Christus and Chrestus.

So you're picking and choosing small accounts, which are not necessarily accurate, to prove that Jesus existed. Again, there are extant works of famous Greek playwrights that are studied to this day. Yet there are only a few accounts of so-called Jesus who performed miracles.

Study your history, scholar. The pageant plays were designed to bring these biblical stories to the masses. It's called indoctrination, and it was in the form of entertainment. Greek tragedies were didactic. If you pissed off the gods, you were doomed. not much different from today, eh?

Look - this is your belief. I get it. Many people NEED to believe in something to get them through life. But faith isn't based on facts. It's a feeling. So even if scholars explain to you the reasons behind certain beliefs, your faith will trump evidence.

Link to the "evidence", please! So far you've waved your hands and mumbled stuff about "evidence" involving Horus and Mithras (which as you know many here find hilarious) and "evidence" that references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman texts. Let's have the evidence, please. Links, please. Good links, not to some atheist site that makes this stuff up.

Now you're citing passion plays that emerged decades and centuries after the gospel accounts that you so casually dismiss as "picking and choosing." Who was the audience for these passion plays? Why did the audience come to the plays, and where did the seed of their interest begin? Your chronology is off and you've got it backwards.

If anybody is up picking and choosing, it's you for dismissing the earliest sources without giving us a reason. No, mumbling and waving your hands don't count as a reason.

You still haven't offered any reasons for:
- why we should simply ignore the early accounts of Mark and Paul (apart from some less-than-convincing mumbling about picking and choosing),
- proof the references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman sources, or
- who, exactly, created Jesus to control the masses with passion plays or scary gods or whatever else you keep mentioning without addressing this fundamental question about origin and "who benefited" in 55 AD. Not plausibly the Romans, not plausibly the Jewish leadership, not plausibly the folks who staged passion plays after there was a decent audience for these plays. So who, then?

Tip: your patronizing tone does zero to support your point. If you present your claims maturely, with logical chronology and claims, supported by more than just your snark and giving god forbid links to scholarly sources, then you might improve your credibility to a DCUM audience. I'm one of the many Borg readers here, so I'm not wedded to a rigid narrative. In fact I know many of the claims. And I know your particular claims don't stand up to even basic logic. Why don't you try to do better. Seriously, I like these conversations, but you're not holding up your end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

There is evidence to support that Josephus' account was later inserted by Christians. Similarly, Tacitus, scholars claim, simply reiterated what he heard from Christians. There may also be confusion between Christus and Chrestus.

So you're picking and choosing small accounts, which are not necessarily accurate, to prove that Jesus existed. Again, there are extant works of famous Greek playwrights that are studied to this day. Yet there are only a few accounts of so-called Jesus who performed miracles.

Study your history, scholar. The pageant plays were designed to bring these biblical stories to the masses. It's called indoctrination, and it was in the form of entertainment. Greek tragedies were didactic. If you pissed off the gods, you were doomed. not much different from today, eh?

Look - this is your belief. I get it. Many people NEED to believe in something to get them through life. But faith isn't based on facts. It's a feeling. So even if scholars explain to you the reasons behind certain beliefs, your faith will trump evidence.

Link to the "evidence", please! So far you've waved your hands and mumbled stuff about "evidence" involving Horus and Mithras (which as you know many here find hilarious) and "evidence" that references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman texts. Let's have the evidence, please. Links, please. Good links, not to some atheist site that makes this stuff up.

Now you're citing passion plays that emerged decades and centuries after the gospel accounts that you so casually dismiss as "picking and choosing." Who was the audience for these passion plays? Why did the audience come to the plays, and where did the seed of their interest begin? Your chronology is off and you've got it backwards.

If anybody is up picking and choosing, it's you for dismissing the earliest sources without giving us a reason. No, mumbling and waving your hands don't count as a reason.

You still haven't offered any reasons for:
- why we should simply ignore the early accounts of Mark and Paul (apart from some less-than-convincing mumbling about picking and choosing),
- proof the references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman sources, or
- who, exactly, created Jesus to control the masses with passion plays or scary gods or whatever else you keep mentioning without addressing this fundamental question about origin and "who benefited" in 55 AD. Not plausibly the Romans, not plausibly the Jewish leadership, not plausibly the folks who staged passion plays after there was a decent audience for these plays. So who, then?

Tip: your patronizing tone does zero to support your point. If you present your claims maturely, with logical chronology and claims, supported by more than just your snark and giving god forbid links to scholarly sources, then you might improve your credibility to a DCUM audience. I'm one of the many Borg readers here, so I'm not wedded to a rigid narrative. In fact I know many of the claims. And I know your particular claims don't stand up to even basic logic. Why don't you try to do better. Seriously, I like these conversations, but you're not holding up your end.

Why should I respond in detail when you've accused me of mentioning Horus and Mithras?

You're getting your myths confused here, hon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

There is evidence to support that Josephus' account was later inserted by Christians. Similarly, Tacitus, scholars claim, simply reiterated what he heard from Christians. There may also be confusion between Christus and Chrestus.

So you're picking and choosing small accounts, which are not necessarily accurate, to prove that Jesus existed. Again, there are extant works of famous Greek playwrights that are studied to this day. Yet there are only a few accounts of so-called Jesus who performed miracles.

Study your history, scholar. The pageant plays were designed to bring these biblical stories to the masses. It's called indoctrination, and it was in the form of entertainment. Greek tragedies were didactic. If you pissed off the gods, you were doomed. not much different from today, eh?

Look - this is your belief. I get it. Many people NEED to believe in something to get them through life. But faith isn't based on facts. It's a feeling. So even if scholars explain to you the reasons behind certain beliefs, your faith will trump evidence.

Link to the "evidence", please! So far you've waved your hands and mumbled stuff about "evidence" involving Horus and Mithras (which as you know many here find hilarious) and "evidence" that references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman texts. Let's have the evidence, please. Links, please. Good links, not to some atheist site that makes this stuff up.

Now you're citing passion plays that emerged decades and centuries after the gospel accounts that you so casually dismiss as "picking and choosing." Who was the audience for these passion plays? Why did the audience come to the plays, and where did the seed of their interest begin? Your chronology is off and you've got it backwards.

If anybody is up picking and choosing, it's you for dismissing the earliest sources without giving us a reason. No, mumbling and waving your hands don't count as a reason.

You still haven't offered any reasons for:
- why we should simply ignore the early accounts of Mark and Paul (apart from some less-than-convincing mumbling about picking and choosing),
- proof the references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman sources, or
- who, exactly, created Jesus to control the masses with passion plays or scary gods or whatever else you keep mentioning without addressing this fundamental question about origin and "who benefited" in 55 AD. Not plausibly the Romans, not plausibly the Jewish leadership, not plausibly the folks who staged passion plays after there was a decent audience for these plays. So who, then?

Tip: your patronizing tone does zero to support your point. If you present your claims maturely, with logical chronology and claims, supported by more than just your snark and giving god forbid links to scholarly sources, then you might improve your credibility to a DCUM audience. I'm one of the many Borg readers here, so I'm not wedded to a rigid narrative. In fact I know many of the claims. And I know your particular claims don't stand up to even basic logic. Why don't you try to do better. Seriously, I like these conversations, but you're not holding up your end.

Why should I respond in detail when you've accused me of mentioning Horus and Mithras?

You're getting your myths confused here, hon.

Hahahahaha. Unless you name the myths you were referring to, we'll all be forced to conclude you're nothing but an ignorant troll whose only weapon is insults.

Bonus points for addressing any of the totally legitimate questions in PP. Oh wait, you just parroted these from some ranting atheist website and you have no clue how to answer them, do you?

[Anonymous]

If you can understand his writing, then I'll suggest this - http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/10/Wells_21Sept2010_Layout-1.pdf

similar sentiments found here - The Evolution of God (Wright)

You simply have a belief in a belief system. That is all.

[Anonymous]

I think that in this great game of telephone, it's all made up and so far beyond anything that is useful to humans today. Femalekind should write a rulebook for humanity and THAT I would follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

There is evidence to support that Josephus' account was later inserted by Christians. Similarly, Tacitus, scholars claim, simply reiterated what he heard from Christians. There may also be confusion between Christus and Chrestus.

So you're picking and choosing small accounts, which are not necessarily accurate, to prove that Jesus existed. Again, there are extant works of famous Greek playwrights that are studied to this day. Yet there are only a few accounts of so-called Jesus who performed miracles.

Study your history, scholar. The pageant plays were designed to bring these biblical stories to the masses. It's called indoctrination, and it was in the form of entertainment. Greek tragedies were didactic. If you pissed off the gods, you were doomed. not much different from today, eh?

Look - this is your belief. I get it. Many people NEED to believe in something to get them through life. But faith isn't based on facts. It's a feeling. So even if scholars explain to you the reasons behind certain beliefs, your faith will trump evidence.

Link to the "evidence", please! So far you've waved your hands and mumbled stuff about "evidence" involving Horus and Mithras (which as you know many here find hilarious) and "evidence" that references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman texts. Let's have the evidence, please. Links, please. Good links, not to some atheist site that makes this stuff up.

Now you're citing passion plays that emerged decades and centuries after the gospel accounts that you so casually dismiss as "picking and choosing." Who was the audience for these passion plays? Why did the audience come to the plays, and where did the seed of their interest begin? Your chronology is off and you've got it backwards.

If anybody is up picking and choosing, it's you for dismissing the earliest sources without giving us a reason. No, mumbling and waving your hands don't count as a reason.

You still haven't offered any reasons for:
- why we should simply ignore the early accounts of Mark and Paul (apart from some less-than-convincing mumbling about picking and choosing),
- proof the references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman sources, or
- who, exactly, created Jesus to control the masses with passion plays or scary gods or whatever else you keep mentioning without addressing this fundamental question about origin and "who benefited" in 55 AD. Not plausibly the Romans, not plausibly the Jewish leadership, not plausibly the folks who staged passion plays after there was a decent audience for these plays. So who, then?

Tip: your patronizing tone does zero to support your point. If you present your claims maturely, with logical chronology and claims, supported by more than just your snark and giving god forbid links to scholarly sources, then you might improve your credibility to a DCUM audience. I'm one of the many Borg readers here, so I'm not wedded to a rigid narrative. In fact I know many of the claims. And I know your particular claims don't stand up to even basic logic. Why don't you try to do better. Seriously, I like these conversations, but you're not holding up your end.

Why should I respond in detail when you've accused me of mentioning Horus and Mithras?

You're getting your myths confused here, hon.

Hahahahaha. Unless you name the myths you were referring to, we'll all be forced to conclude you're nothing but an ignorant troll whose only weapon is insults.

Bonus points for addressing any of the totally legitimate questions in PP. Oh wait, you just parroted these from some ranting atheist website and you have no clue how to answer them, do you?

No one is parroting anything from anywhere. If you examine religion through multiple perspectives - history, sociology, and psychology - you'll see the trends. The less we knew the more myths we relied on. Sadly, people still fight science and history by embracing these outdated beliefs.

and polytheistic cultures? Certainly if you believe in your omniscient god, you wouldn't think to question Poseidon, correct? After all, didn't he control the seas?

oh wait - He was later REPLACED by ONE god. So the Greeks got it all wrong, I guess, b/c suddenly - POOF! - the all-knowing god sprouted up.

right- And I grow candy canes in my garden, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that in this great game of telephone, it's all made up and so far beyond anything that is useful to humans today. Femalekind should write a rulebook for humanity and THAT I would follow.

Get a group started, and I'll gladly join!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you can understand his writing, then I'll suggest this - http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/10/Wells_21Sept2010_Layout-1.pdf

similar sentiments found here - The Evolution of God (Wright)

You simply have a belief in a belief system. That is all.

So an unpublished, probably not peer-reviewed manuscript? Way to knock it out of the park, big guy or big gal.

But hey, I'll read it this afternoon. As I mentioned, I love this stuff.

(And I'm totally capable of reading it because I have an advanced degree and many published, peer-reviewed papers of my own. Say a conservative 30 of my own published, peer-reviewed papers on economics issues, so many that I've lost count and can't be bothered to do a tally on my cv. But don't let that stop you insulting my intelligence, if that's the only card you have to play....)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

There is evidence to support that Josephus' account was later inserted by Christians. Similarly, Tacitus, scholars claim, simply reiterated what he heard from Christians. There may also be confusion between Christus and Chrestus.

So you're picking and choosing small accounts, which are not necessarily accurate, to prove that Jesus existed. Again, there are extant works of famous Greek playwrights that are studied to this day. Yet there are only a few accounts of so-called Jesus who performed miracles.

Study your history, scholar. The pageant plays were designed to bring these biblical stories to the masses. It's called indoctrination, and it was in the form of entertainment. Greek tragedies were didactic. If you pissed off the gods, you were doomed. not much different from today, eh?

Look - this is your belief. I get it. Many people NEED to believe in something to get them through life. But faith isn't based on facts. It's a feeling. So even if scholars explain to you the reasons behind certain beliefs, your faith will trump evidence.

Link to the "evidence", please! So far you've waved your hands and mumbled stuff about "evidence" involving Horus and Mithras (which as you know many here find hilarious) and "evidence" that references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman texts. Let's have the evidence, please. Links, please. Good links, not to some atheist site that makes this stuff up.

Now you're citing passion plays that emerged decades and centuries after the gospel accounts that you so casually dismiss as "picking and choosing." Who was the audience for these passion plays? Why did the audience come to the plays, and where did the seed of their interest begin? Your chronology is off and you've got it backwards.

If anybody is up picking and choosing, it's you for dismissing the earliest sources without giving us a reason. No, mumbling and waving your hands don't count as a reason.

You still haven't offered any reasons for:
- why we should simply ignore the early accounts of Mark and Paul (apart from some less-than-convincing mumbling about picking and choosing),
- proof the references to Jesus were "inserted" in Roman sources, or
- who, exactly, created Jesus to control the masses with passion plays or scary gods or whatever else you keep mentioning without addressing this fundamental question about origin and "who benefited" in 55 AD. Not plausibly the Romans, not plausibly the Jewish leadership, not plausibly the folks who staged passion plays after there was a decent audience for these plays. So who, then?

Tip: your patronizing tone does zero to support your point. If you present your claims maturely, with logical chronology and claims, supported by more than just your snark and giving god forbid links to scholarly sources, then you might improve your credibility to a DCUM audience. I'm one of the many Borg readers here, so I'm not wedded to a rigid narrative. In fact I know many of the claims. And I know your particular claims don't stand up to even basic logic. Why don't you try to do better. Seriously, I like these conversations, but you're not holding up your end.

Why should I respond in detail when you've accused me of mentioning Horus and Mithras?

You're getting your myths confused here, hon.

Hahahahaha. Unless you name the myths you were referring to, we'll all be forced to conclude you're nothing but an ignorant troll whose only weapon is insults.

Bonus points for addressing any of the totally legitimate questions in PP. Oh wait, you just parroted these from some ranting atheist website and you have no clue how to answer them, do you?

No one is parroting anything from anywhere. If you examine religion through multiple perspectives - history, sociology, and psychology - you'll see the trends. The less we knew the more myths we relied on. Sadly, people still fight science and history by embracing these outdated beliefs.

and polytheistic cultures? Certainly if you believe in your omniscient god, you wouldn't think to question Poseidon, correct? After all, didn't he control the seas?

oh wait - He was later REPLACED by ONE god. So the Greeks got it all wrong, I guess, b/c suddenly - POOF! - the all-knowing god sprouted up.

right- And I grow candy canes in my garden, too.

Look, a straw man! Over there! It's Poseidon!

Hey, I'm familiar with the socio-political arguments. I even voted socialist on my first ever ballot. But even then, your particular line of reasoning, about the supposed straight line from Poseidon and his ilk, didn't work for me. Show me the 2000-year-old document saying "let's control the masses with a new monotheistic god because Mount Olympus is losing followers" and we'll talk. Oh wait, you not have this papyrus from 2000 years ago? Why ever could that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can understand his writing, then I'll suggest this - http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/10/Wells_21Sept2010_Layout-1.pdf

similar sentiments found here - The Evolution of God (Wright)

You simply have a belief in a belief system. That is all.

So an unpublished, probably not peer-reviewed manuscript? Way to knock it out of the park, big guy or big gal.

But hey, I'll read it this afternoon. As I mentioned, I love this stuff.

(And I'm totally capable of reading it because I have an advanced degree and many published, peer-reviewed papers of my own. Say a conservative 30 of my own published, peer-reviewed papers on economics issues, so many that I've lost count and can't be bothered to do a tally on my cv. But don't let that stop you insulting my intelligence, if that's the only card you have to play....)

yeah

Well, it's from here - http://www.bu.edu/arion/

about - http://www.bu.edu/arion/about/

Here you go, hon:

e-Journal Details
Title: Arion
Abbrev: ARION A JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND THE CLASSICS
Abbrev: ARION ( UNIVERSITY WIRE )
Alternative: Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics
Alternative: Arion (Boston)
ISSN: 0095-5809
Peer-Reviewed: Yes

It's not that hard to find out this information yourself, especially if you're such a scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you can understand his writing, then I'll suggest this - http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/10/Wells_21Sept2010_Layout-1.pdf

similar sentiments found here - The Evolution of God (Wright)

You simply have a belief in a belief system. That is all.

Why do so many atheists, who claim to put so much stock in rationality, resort to grade-school insults to make their points? Do you guys realize that everybody tunes you out as childish bullies with nothing substantive to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can understand his writing, then I'll suggest this - http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/10/Wells_21Sept2010_Layout-1.pdf

similar sentiments found here - The Evolution of God (Wright)

You simply have a belief in a belief system. That is all.

So an unpublished, probably not peer-reviewed manuscript? Way to knock it out of the park, big guy or big gal.

But hey, I'll read it this afternoon. As I mentioned, I love this stuff.

(And I'm totally capable of reading it because I have an advanced degree and many published, peer-reviewed papers of my own. Say a conservative 30 of my own published, peer-reviewed papers on economics issues, so many that I've lost count and can't be bothered to do a tally on my cv. But don't let that stop you insulting my intelligence, if that's the only card you have to play....)

yeah

Well, it's from here - http://www.bu.edu/arion/

about - http://www.bu.edu/arion/about/

Here you go, hon:

e-Journal Details
Title: Arion
Abbrev: ARION A JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND THE CLASSICS
Abbrev: ARION ( UNIVERSITY WIRE )
Alternative: Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics
Alternative: Arion (Boston)
ISSN: 0095-5809
Peer-Reviewed: Yes

It's not that hard to find out this information yourself, especially if you're such a scholar.

If you represent atheists... then please, God, don't let me become like her and turn into a petty, ignorant bully. Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can understand his writing, then I'll suggest this - http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/10/Wells_21Sept2010_Layout-1.pdf

similar sentiments found here - The Evolution of God (Wright)

You simply have a belief in a belief system. That is all.

Why do so many atheists, who claim to put so much stock in rationality, resort to grade-school insults to make their points? Do you guys realize that everybody tunes you out as childish bullies with nothing substantive to say?

I'm super sick of atheists like the righteous PP in this thread. They pick out religion for special scorn with an irrational vengeance -- religion is one kind of ideology. Communism, socialism, fascism, secular humanism -- these are also ideologies. We are all human -- criticizing religion as "man-made" like that's some devastating critique is ridiculous. All ideologies are articulated to an extent by man, even if they reflect non super-natural "truths" like Marxism's materialistic interpretation of history. For the record, I'm the OP that believes Jesus existed and loves his teachings. I do not believe in God -- nor I do believe there is NOT a God -- I'm just indifferent and try to follow Jesus's teaching. If others think him divine, I respect that and their belief in God. I guess that makes me an atheist, but I am wholly opposed to the reductive, anti-religion atheism of the PP.

[Anonymous]

^^^ meant to +1 in the beginning of my above post. My criticism was directed at the first quoted atheist PP.