Bryan, this conversation of ours had already reached a point of diminishing returns. Your strategy seems to be to dissect the surface form of arguments without ever actually responding to their content. When the particular point of the argument is raised, you do your best to change the subject. My strategy, really the only one possible for someone with a finite amount of time, has been to ignore the diversionary tactics and focus on the point. That seems to have done the job, since our most recent exchanges have become progressively more risible. And I am sorry but nobody gets to make up rules about how and when questions in a thread will be answered. All that matters is that one argue in good faith, which means with an interest in the facts that the argument is trying to reveal, rather than in the surface form of words. Otherwise it’s all really an exercise in obfuscation.
Bryan, this conversation of ours had already reached a point of diminishing returns. Your strategy seems to be to dissect the surface form of arguments without ever actually responding to their content.
Directly to the contrary, I get deeper into the meat of the argument by examining the presuppositions behind (for example) the questions you were asking. By all appearances, you wanted the surface argument, the simple yes-or-no answer that would fuel your self-admitted intention to construct a reductio ad absurdum. You went very single-mindedly toward that goal while ignoring my call for you to consider the implications in your questions.
When the particular point of the argument is raised, you do your best to change the subject.
For example (oops, there I go changing the subject again)?
My strategy, really the only one possible for someone with a finite amount of time, has been to ignore the diversionary tactics and focus on the point. That seems to have done the job, since our most recent exchanges have become progressively more risible. And I am sorry but nobody gets to make up rules about how and when questions in a thread will be answered. All that matters is that one argue in good faith, which means with an interest in the facts that the argument is trying to reveal, rather than in the surface form of words. Otherwise it’s all really an exercise in obfuscation.
Your unwillingness to commit to answering even one of my questions while I attempt to answer each of yours speaks poorly of your good faith. And obviously I was not making any rule for what questions get answered. I suggested a very minimal standard under which you might have demonstrated a grain of good faith--and you wouldn’t do it. I most certainly have the power to cease my end of our discussion based on your refusal, just like anyone has the power to participate in a discussion or not, or to place a given member on “ignore.” You don’t make the deal, I don’t continue our discussion. If you want to figuratively quit before you’re fired that’s entirely up to you.
Bryan, they are too long. That’s part of the headache. I don’t think you need to quote as much as you do in order to reply to people. It’s too straining on the eyes and people really don’t have that much time on their hands.
If you follow up on your topic I’ll experiment with a different approach.
You mean my topic being the relationship between the Christ myth and previous myths? I don’t mind at all, but it will have to wait until after dinner. I just dropped in to check on things. What part are you wanting follow up on or what is it you are not understanding?
You mean my topic being the relationship between the Christ myth and previous myths? I don’t mind at all, but it will have to wait until after dinner. I just dropped in to check on things. What part are you wanting follow up on or what is it you are not understanding?
Yes, I mean your topic about the supposed Christ-myth pattern. No rush. Take all week if you feel like it.
In my earlier reply to you I mentioned that I was interested in the specifics, particularly the scholarly sources you were using and the primary sources.
Bryan, from your other comments I see I didn’t word the initial question clearly.
I appreciate your willingness to revisit the issue.
Do you know of an explanation which you think might be helpful to others as to why God does not reveal Himself more fully.
I think that the comment I made to you about the behavior of people to whom God has revealed himself should be helpful.
I knew a man who was part of a church ministry. He and a friend in the ministry started deliberately ministering in strip clubs. Both became involved with women (plural) in the clubs and left their wives and kids. I had a brief conversation with one of them. He told me that he believes every word in the Bible, and he knows it is true. But he said (hopefully this paraphrase is suitably accurate) that he was having too much fun to go back to his family.
Is it possible that he was lying about believing the Bible? Sure--but what would be his motivation for saying so given his commitment to the path he chose? The way the Bible portrays the fickleness of humans concurs with my observations. People with no good reason to indulge in crime gravitate toward it anyway (Michael Vick). Corruption abounds in politics, a sphere where trust is critical. People engage in treason for short-term gain.
The type of argument you’re talking about, at least in my experience, tends to always ask for a little bit more. Once God has revealed himself, it is then asked that God reveal himself unmistakably. When “unmistakably” is unpacked it usually appears to mean that one cannot will disbelief.
The premise of the argument is that God has not revealed himself enough or that God has not revealed himself sufficiently. Unpack either premise and free will is thrown in doubt (a hard Calvinist might not trouble himself over such things, but I am not a hard Calvinist).
I didn’t understand what you mean by “God doesn’t need to”.... did you mean that YOU didn’t feel a need for God to reveal Himself [more] or did you mean that since he’s a God, God doesn’t “need to” do anything.... [or maybe something else].
Fair enough. I’ve noted before that communication is always a challenge where the two sides have little common ground.
I meant that I personally did not need any particular special sign to accept God’s existence. As I’m mentioned before, however, I have had personal experiences that have served to strengthen my conviction of God’s existence and of his interest in humanity. I judge that a skeptic would find those experiences mundane and would describe them as coincidental. Coincidence and correlation are close cousins, on the other hand.
You mean my topic being the relationship between the Christ myth and previous myths? I don’t mind at all, but it will have to wait until after dinner. I just dropped in to check on things. What part are you wanting follow up on or what is it you are not understanding?
Yes, I mean your topic about the supposed Christ-myth pattern. No rush. Take all week if you feel like it.
In my earlier reply to you I mentioned that I was interested in the specifics, particularly the scholarly sources you were using and the primary sources.
First of all, we aren’t defining myth in the same way. I gather you are taking it that I am saying it is “false”, but if you look up the word in Webster’s dictionary, you will see that it says 1. A: a usu. traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of apeople or explain a practice, belief or natural phenomenon. B: parable, allegory 2. a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone. Thus, there may have been an historical Jesus, but he is too buried in myth to actually find the real man, if there ever was a real man named Jesus (and there were many men named Jesus round that time). Karen Armstrong explains this (definition of myth) also in her book “A Short History of Myth”. So, now that we have the definition clear, let’s continue…
Primary sources I used for Krishna and the Buddha earlier were the “Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha” and the Gita, along with the Bible because I was comparing the three. It was the religious texts themselves. Not to mention there is a story where the newborn Krishna (in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana Book X Chapter 3 Krsna’s Birth) was going to be killed by the head hancho, so they smuggled him off else where, much like they smuggled off Jesus in Matthew. Funny thing is, Luke’s story is different than Matthews, right down to Joseph’s geneology. See, aside from names, places, and alike, the stories, parables, etc are virtually the same in previous stories prior to the Christ myth. The difference is the culture and the people the stories were written. The Christ myth was written for Jews and Christians.
Prior to the current era (in BCE) there was contact between India and what we know today as the Holy Land. I heard this today in my Buddhism class. So, even before the stories of Christ were written, the people were hearing them. The thing is, Horus was the Christ story before the Christ story was ever written. Isis and Horus were the Madonna before Mary and Jesus ever were.
Now let’s take another text. Robert Price has said the Joshua story is very much the Christ story and many a scholar has pointed to that text as one of the texts of the Joshua cult. Yesua (Jesus) was Joshua before the Christ stories were ever written. You can find this info in other places besides Price’s lectures, Podcasts, and alike.
Now back to Devaki, Krsna’s mother, (the same book and chapter above). Even though she had prior children, Krsna was born the incarnation of Visnu. Her husband didn’t touch her for this pregnancy. Vishnu enter her womb, much like the H.S. entered Mary. So, It too was a divine conception and birth, whether you want to call it a virgin birth or not.
I realize you are at some what of a disadvantage since you don’t have the texts before you as I do, but those are the jests of each divine birth. Now it’s not just the NT, but the OT too that does this. I’ve been studying this since I took an Old Testament Parallels class with Victor H. Matthews who wrote Old Testament Parallels which can be found on Amazon. The OT is loaded with rewritten myth, from the Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and other cultures.
Osiris/Horus story. The story is called “The Birth and Flight of Horus”. You can find out more about this from Tom Harpur (The Pagan Christ), Acharya, Spong, and Price even makes mention of it too. Even though Seth came first, Horus was still a divine birth. His human father had nothing to do with Isis’s pregnancy, but rather a divine deity. I can’t find the written text online, but the pictographs depict this story, if you can understand them. You can either hunt down the actual translated text and/or read Tom Harpur’s book, as well as others, including Acharya S’s books. Robert Price has some good books the include midrash and his podcasts speak of Horus from time to time, in fact, Minnesota Atheists has a two part podcast of Bob Price talking about the parallels between previous stories and the Christ story. They don’t have the text, but you may still glean something from them. I also suggest Karen Armstrong’s A History of God too.
I won’t go into the astrotheology stuff, but IMHO, the Christ myth is rewritten myth and no, the devil didn’t beat anyone to it in order to deceive people. I don’t buy that one, so that excuse for your reply is completely out.
That’s for starters, but I have the texts of modern religions and a few of the older dead religons- what the general public calls myth. I also have several more textbooks and other books on the subject. It all depends on how far you want to take this. It is a topic I have been studying and researching for years.
Why do children suffer from cancer, Bryan? Is this some kind of God’s plan or is He unable to do anything about it or what?
It’s part of God’s sovereign plan (not in the Calvinist sense), and He is able to do something about it.
The gist of your question is another framing of the problem of evil. I’ve already engaged that issue with Doug, but if he bails as I expect him to (via his unwillingness to commit to answering one of my questions per post) I’ll entertain your attempt in greater detail. Fair enough? Let’s give Doug a week.
Why do children suffer from cancer, Bryan? Is this some kind of God’s plan or is He unable to do anything about it or what?
It’s part of God’s sovereign plan…
Oh brother! What sort of god is THAT! Too bad my Christian friend isn’t a member here. She’d take you on concerning that statement, Bryan. Which goes to show that even within Christianity, Christians disagree with each other on who and what god is. IF such a deity existed, I wouldn’t worship it and neither would my friend.
I’d say you’re way off base in thinking that I came here to get atheists to flail about trying to prove that god doesn’t exist. It’s always fun to find a hard atheist willing to make the attempt, but those are rare. I’m quite content to challenge the claims that atheists are perfectly willing to make without apparent hesitation, such as Doug’s claim that law X is clearly immoral. I’m more interested in the comparison of worldviews--how do various worldviews explain existence, address morality, rational thought, etcetera.
I am not at all convinced by this response. And, although I hate to reiterate an already-voiced point (made by Jackson), listening to the most recent POI podcast led me (independently) to think about what is going on in this particular thread. So I just want to voice my complete agreement with Jackson’s point; for it seems to shed light on some of the failures-to-communicate that have run-wild here in this thread.
John Shook is one of my philosophical heroes. And his recent interview on Point of Inquiry was flawless—the guy just doesn’t miss a beat. Highly recommended!
He was discussing a recent debate he had with the theologian William Lane Craig.
Here is the exchange that I (and Jackson too, I suppose) find particularly relevant:
D.J. Grothe: [Craig was arguing] “that naturalism has to somehow prove that supernaturalism doesn’t exist in order to succeed as a theory.
Shook: “Yes, exactly. And I find that tactic highly counterproductive if not outright irrational, for the following very brief reason: It’s almost as if Craig wants to say belief in the supernatural is reasonable because supernatural beliefs can’t be proven false. It’s this sort-of dare: this challenge. Well the problem with that is that just because you can’t prove something false doesn’t make it true. This is school-yard logic. You can imagine children daring each other to prove them false.”
D.J.: “Prove that I don’t have a pink unicorn at home.”
Shook: “Exactly, there’s no way to prove these things. And, in effect, what they do is they render their conception of the supernatural perfectly meaningless and insupportable by any evidence. I call this ‘theology over the edge’. Theology has completely stopped trying to explain nature or human experience, it’s simply leaving us with this dare: ‘prove me false’. The problem is, they’re good—these ‘theologians over the edge’ are very intelligent people, they can design supernaturalisms that cannot be proven false by any human evidence. The problem is when no evidence can prove it false no evidence can help prove it true either. That’s a basic logical point that escapes these theologians. So they’re left with no justification ultimately and no way of satisfying their burden of proof.”
See, we atheists view the Christian belief system as on par with Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, pink-unicornism, etc. All are equally absurd--i.e. lacking real evidence--to the atheist. So, Bryan, I think that the atheists here find your responses evasive because they don’t provide the sort of evidence that anyone—meaning those not already convinced by theism—could be persuaded by.
So, if there is a question for a Christian here it is this: what evidence do you marshal in support of your belief in the supernatural Christian god? What justification can you provide to convince us that your beliefs are true rather that just arguing that we can’t prove you wrong? The burden of proof seems to be on you. We are not asserting anything, but you are. And if your theology is “over the edge"… Is it?
First of all, we aren’t defining myth in the same way…
I think we are defining “myth” the same way, at least to the extent I’ve merely used the term in a context close to the notions you’ve already expressed. Though if you don’t get around to using common literary patterns as an argument against the historicity of the gospels I’m not sure what point you’d be driving at. But I can endure a mystery.
And I see as got deeper into your paragraph you touched on the notion that trust in the gospels would be undermined by some aspect of the Jesus myth idea that you intend to explore with me. It seems we’re on the same page even if we don’t necessarily agree.
See, aside from names, places, and alike, the stories, parables, etc are virtually the same in previous stories prior to the Christ myth.
Thanks for identifying your source material.
This ruler of men, dallying with his queen, enjoyed, as it were, the sovereign glory of Vaisravana. Then without defilement she received the fruit of the womb, just as knowledge combined with mental concentration bears fruit.
Before she conceived, she saw in her sleep a white lord of elephants entering her body, yet she felt thereby no pain. http://books.google.com/books?id=qAr58yrD6cMC&printsec=frontcover&sig=IawO_ytx3DKBu1_Cd6KiM1meBJA
What type of dallying do you think the king enjoyed with the queen according to this work?
What portion of the Bhagavat-Gita is relevant to Krshna’s virgin birth, please?
Horus and Jesus probably have little in common other than being portrayed as male. In each case I’ll ask for the source material you use to back up your claims. If you wish to set only your very best case forward that’s OK with me.
I did not find a clear (online) presentation of Robert Price’s assertion of Joshua-Jesus parallelism. Hopefully you can recommend one (whether from Price or somebody else).
I’m having trouble finding the Krsna birth account from the Bhagavata Purana, but I did find this:
Scholars are in general agreement that the Bhagavata-Purana was probably composed about the 10th century, somewhere in the Tamil country of South India. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9079025/Bhagavata-Purana
It’s rather disappointing that the books by the respective authors do not include the texts of the myths they seek to compare (if I’m reading your account correctly), but I’m happy to see that you have been researching this topic for years. That increases the likelihood that you have investigated the claims back to the original source materials so we might refer to them directly as the discussion progresses.
Oh brother! What sort of god is THAT! Too bad my Christian friend isn’t a member here. She’d take you on concerning that statement, Bryan. Which goes to show that even within Christianity, Christians disagree with each other on who and what god is. IF such a deity existed, I wouldn’t worship it and neither would my friend.
It helps if you don’t chop off the context, Mriana. (Some) Calvinists teach meticulous control on the part of God, and I made clear that I wasn’t using that Calvinist sense. And by contrasting my view to the Calvinist sense it should be clear that I acknowledge differences on the issue among Christians--and I don’t see why that’s supposed to be relevant, anyway.
First of all, we aren’t defining myth in the same way…
I think we are defining “myth” the same way, at least to the extent I’ve merely used the term in a context close to the notions you’ve already expressed. Though if you don’t get around to using common literary patterns as an argument against the historicity of the gospels I’m not sure what point you’d be driving at. But I can endure a mystery.
I told you the common literary patterns. Divine birth, fleeing, etc. It was all rewritten to a different culture. They all written from the same template. It’s nothing new under the sun and in fact, it is about the sun and alike. Even the story of Samson is allegory for the sun, but that is another story. The point is, the Christ myth is Krishna, Buddha, Horus, etc. The difference is, Krishna is the Hindu version, Buddha is the Buddhist version, Horus is the Egyptian version, even Moses is the Hebrew version for that matter of the Christ story. Seems to me it’s the same old Xian denial.
And I see as got deeper into your paragraph you touched on the notion that trust in the gospels would be undermined by some aspect of the Jesus myth idea that you intend to explore with me. It seems we’re on the same page even if we don’t necessarily agree.
No we’re not.
See, aside from names, places, and alike, the stories, parables, etc are virtually the same in previous stories prior to the Christ myth.
Thanks for identifying your source material.
This ruler of men, dallying with his queen, enjoyed, as it were, the sovereign glory of Vaisravana. Then without defilement she received the fruit of the womb, just as knowledge combined with mental concentration bears fruit.
Before she conceived, she saw in her sleep a white lord of elephants entering her body, yet she felt thereby no pain. http://books.google.com/books?id=qAr58yrD6cMC&printsec=frontcover&sig=IawO_ytx3DKBu1_Cd6KiM1meBJA
What type of dallying do you think the king enjoyed with the queen according to this work?
What portion of the Bhagavat-Gita is relevant to Krshna’s virgin birth, please?
No, Krishna’s virgin birth is not in the Gita. In fact, I stated it was in the Puranas. Reread that part and you will see I placed his birth story in the Purana’s.
Horus and Jesus probably have little in common other than being portrayed as male.
That is not true.
In each case I’ll ask for the source material you use to back up your claims. If you wish to set only your very best case forward that’s OK with me.
I told you the source, my dear. The Coffin Text of the Egyptian version.
I did not find a clear (online) presentation of Robert Price’s assertion of Joshua-Jesus parallelism. Hopefully you can recommend one (whether from Price or somebody else).
I gave you that too. Try the Minnesota atheist podcasts.
I’m having trouble finding the Krsna birth account from the Bhagavata Purana, but I did find this:
Scholars are in general agreement that the Bhagavata-Purana was probably composed about the 10th century, somewhere in the Tamil country of South India. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9079025/Bhagavata-Purana
I did not say the Bhagavata-Purana. You’re thinking of the Bhagavata-Gita and it’s not there. I said the Srimad Bhagavata Purana Book X Chapter 3. Try the book on Amazon. An encyclopedia is not going to get you the religious text.
It’s rather disappointing that the books by the respective authors do not include the texts of the myths they seek to compare (if I’m reading your account correctly), but I’m happy to see that you have been researching this topic for years. That increases the likelihood that you have investigated the claims back to the original source materials so we might refer to them directly as the discussion progresses.
No, I gave you the religious texts as the sources. You will have to read the religious texts themselves, which may take ordering them from Amazon. For Krishna’s “I am” text, which states he is “the beginning, middle, and end” see the Bhagavad-GITA Tenth teaching specifically verse 32. The revelation that he is Vishnu incarnate see teaching 11 verse 24. For Buddha’s virgin birth story, see the “Buddhacarita or Acts of Buddha” first chapter. And again, for Krishna’s virgin birth story see the Srimad Bhagavata Purana Book X, end of chapter 2 and also Chapter 3. It’s really not that hard to find. Go to the library if you don’t want to buy the religious texts.
BTW, what you do not understand about the Hindu texts is that they were passed down orally and precisely. They were not written down until much later. The amazing thing is, the way the Brahman memorized texts were extremely accurate and they saw no need to write them down because of that. Boy you really need to take a university class or something concerning some of these religions instead of relying solely on an encyclopedia, which doesn’t give you all the info you need to know all about it.
Well, perhaps you should just wait from now to doomsday for me to suggest that you need to prove that God doesn’t exist. On doomsday maybe you’ll believe it, if your attention isn’t distracted by other things.
D.J.: “Prove that I don’t have a pink unicorn at home.”
Shook: “Exactly, there’s no way to prove these things. And, in effect, what they do is they render their conception of the supernatural perfectly meaningless and insupportable by any evidence. I call this ‘theology over the edge’. Theology has completely stopped trying to explain nature or human experience, it’s simply leaving us with this dare: ‘prove me false’. The problem is, they’re good—these ‘theologians over the edge’ are very intelligent people, they can design supernaturalisms that cannot be proven false by any human evidence. The problem is when no evidence can prove it false no evidence can help prove it true either. That’s a basic logical point that escapes these theologians. So they’re left with no justification ultimately and no way of satisfying their burden of proof.”
I take the tack of using the random formation of quantum particles as proof of the supernatural, at least when I find a philosophical naturalist who is willing to use the term for something other than things that cannot ever happen (I don’t tend to use the term unless the naturalist brings it up). Causeless events run directly contrary to the classic definition of naturalism. The are not explainable in terms of cause and effect (prescriptive laws of nature) nor predictable (specific randomness is unpredictable in principle).
So it seems to me that the honest naturalist should admit that traditional naturalism has been falsified (naturalism would predict, by definition, that causeless events are impossible).
See, we atheists view the Christian belief system as on par with Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, pink-unicornism, etc. All are equally absurd--i.e. lacking real evidence--to the atheist. So, Bryan, I think that the atheists here find your responses evasive because they don’t provide the sort of evidence that anyone—meaning those not already convinced by theism—could be persuaded by.
Well, how do people ever become Christians (theists)? Are they all born that way???
I think that approach (at least as you’ve expressed it) is wrongheaded. People tend to think fallaciously--even people in groups like this (need examples?). People can believe things for all manner of reasons, even if you refuse to believe they can do so.
So, if there is a question for a Christian here it is this: what evidence do you marshal in support of your belief in the supernatural Christian god? What justification can you provide to convince us that your beliefs are true rather that just arguing that we can’t prove you wrong? The burden of proof seems to be on you. We are not asserting anything, but you are. And if your theology is “over the edge"… Is it?
What am I asserting and where, PN? This is a thread where people ask questions, and I’ve already spoken to the one you propose by stating that a comprehensive representation of my rationale for believing would be book-length, and no doubt a book you could snooze through since it is impossible for the arguments to convince anyone!
Don’t ask me questions that require extremely long answers if I’m to do justice to the issue. Unless you arrange payment in advance.
I find it funny that you assert (view the Christian belief system) that Christianity is on a par with Mormonism. Yet you’re not asserting anything.
I’ll tell you my view of the burden of proof for application at message boards. If you expect somebody to believe something that you say, be prepared to argue for it. That goes for you as well as me. Why should I believe that Christianity is on a par with Mormonism (your non-assertion assertion)? Perhaps you think it’s up to me to prove that Christianity isn’t on a par with Mormonism. I can make that my burden of proof if I wish (depending on whether I wish you to change your view), but why shouldn’t I simply ask you why you view Christianity as on a par with Mormonism? Isn’t it a great opportunity for me to see how to reason rationally?
And if you make a mistake in your reasoning, don’t you have an interest in eliminating the mistake?
What sort of god is THAT! Too bad my Christian friend isn’t a member here. She’d take you on concerning that statement, Bryan. Which goes to show that even within Christianity, Christians disagree with each other on who and what god is. IF such a deity existed, I wouldn’t worship it and neither would my friend.
