Missing Invitees

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by 2+2, Jul 31, 1999.

  1. Zapper Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    What I find interesting here is this whole thing got started about 18 days ago, and lo and behold we don't seem to have any reply's
    from our dog-ma Christain fans.
    Come on guys, 'Cat Got Your Tounge, or What'. Perhaps you may know when to keep
    you big kisser quiet.
    Mind you I could care less what you believe in, or don't. I too believe in God, but have the sense to know it can only be accepted and not proved, or pushed on anyone.
    What does bother me is the ignorant
    bast....s who pass judgement on others and even go to the point to say it is ok to destroy thoes who don't believe as they do.
    Pat Roberson, for one has said publicly that "anyone who believes in flying saucers, is worshiping Satan should be put to death" Mind you this man calls himself a "Man of God". I think not. Perhaps a Man/Leader of the Insane.
    What is even more distressing is it is possiable that someone like this could become President. God help us if this does
    happen. With the doomsday outlook they have, why not go ahead and push the RED BUTTON ? "Its a coming anyway".
    Forgive my spelling please. I know it's bad. My problem is dislexia. (boo, hoo).
    Love these topics/debates.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,980
    Try this on for a process; I can't imagine why you can't get this . . . .

    Jesus dies. Okay. Now his disciples are kind of bummed out. Too bad. Some of them go on drinking binges that last for ten days. Okay? Three days? Ten days? Can you see anyone being depressed after Jesus died? Can we agree that at least SOMEONE close to him might have found this occasion a bummer? Now, the where you and I seemed to really start to not see eye to eye is right about here. Okay, so imagine that I am the person who was close to Jesus and chose to feel badly. Maybe I might feel like a drink. Or six. Or sixty.

    Is that so hard to understand?

    As for the things which I know quite well you did not say, well, I'm sorry: what else could explain your inability to understand that all of this 'twixt you and I started when you failed to understand that it is entirely possible that someone was too drunk to stumble to the tomb. Certes, it was all assumption for argument's sake, but I needed some motivation to work with here. And you're certainly full of that.

    Now . . . take a deep breath. If I recall, the original question had to do with why the disciples weren't there when Jesus rolled away the stone.

    Okay, you can exhale . . . .

    So: Maybe some of them were drunk.

    I actually find the notion fittingly funny. Too drunk to attend the greatest Godly miracle yet. It sounds about human, to me. I am truly sorry if you can't handle that idea, or can't understand it, or can't whatever. I just don't get where you're failing to understand that people get stinking drunk sometimes when they're depressed.

    Ye gods! You're making me want a drink now.

    Tiassa

    ------------------
    "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 2+2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    <blockquote>


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Try this on for a process; I can't imagine why you
    can't get this . . . . </font></p>
    </blockquote>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I find your consistent ad homonym
    argument that I don't get drunkenness...amusing.</font></p>

    <blockquote>
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

    Jesus dies. Okay. Now his disciples are kind of
    bummed out. Too bad. Some of them go on drinking binges that last for ten days. Okay?
    Three days? Ten days? Can you see anyone being depressed after Jesus died? Can we agree
    that at least SOMEONE close to him might have found this occasion a bummer? Now, the where
    you and I seemed to really start to not see eye to eye is right about here. Okay, so
    imagine that I am the person who was close to Jesus and chose to feel badly. Maybe I might
    feel like a drink. Or six. Or sixty. </p>
    </font>
    </blockquote>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Absolutely amazing!&nbsp; You
    persist.&nbsp; They were bummed out and got drunk.&nbsp; Too drunk to remember his
    prophecy, but not too drunk to race to the tomb after MM tells them what's happened.</font></p>

    <blockquote>
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

    Is that so hard to understand? </p>
    </font>
    </blockquote>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">It is really really hard to
    understand my friend.&nbsp; You stand alone.&nbsp; Never have I heard any one say that the
    disciples failed to show up because they were all drunk.&nbsp; It's funny.&nbsp; I am an
    idiot to continue...clearly you don't read what I say to you.&nbsp; No you push on with I
    don't get it, and you do.&nbsp; </font></p>

    <blockquote>
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

    As for the things which I know quite well you did
    not say, well, I'm sorry: what else could explain your inability to understand that all of
    this 'twixt you and I started when you failed to understand that it is entirely possible
    that someone was too drunk to stumble to the tomb. Certes, it was all assumption for
    argument's sake, but I needed some motivation to work with here. And you're certainly full
    of that. </p>
    </font>
    </blockquote>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Ad homonym B.S.</font></p>

    <blockquote>
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

    Now . . . take a deep breath. If I recall, the
    original question had to do with why the disciples weren't there when Jesus rolled away
    the stone. Okay, you can exhale . . . . So: Maybe some of them were drunk. </p>
    </font>
    </blockquote>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Again!!??&nbsp; What's the matter?
    &nbsp; Either you can't read, or your drunk.&nbsp; I really don't think you could find two
    people in NYC who would agree with you, that the apostles were all drunk, and that is why
    they failed to wait for their guru to resurrect himself.&nbsp; Jeez</font></p>
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

    <blockquote>


    I actually find the notion fittingly funny. Too drunk to attend the greatest Godly
    miracle yet. It sounds about human, to me. I am truly sorry if you can't handle that idea,
    or can't understand it, or can't whatever. I just don't get where you're failing to
    understand that people get stinking drunk sometimes when they're depressed. </p>
    </blockquote>

    </font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I'm drunk right now...and
    probably depressed too....your point though, it sucks.</font><font face="Verdana, Arial"
    size="2"></p>

    <blockquote>


    Ye gods! You're making me want a drink now. </p>
    </blockquote>

    </font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Don't blame me...Any excuse
    will do.&nbsp; Between you and me, the disciples didn't show because all that miracle
    stuff didn't happen like it's written.</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"></p>

    &nbsp;</p>

    ------------------

    &quot;Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet.&quot; (Khaavren of Castlerock)</font></p>
    </body>
    </html>


    ------------------
    The landscape opened like a children's book...
    It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dave Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    Hi guys,
    I may be a little late on this topic to add my two cents worth, but here goes.....
    After Jesus cracked a fit in a temple for people trading on the Sabbath, he was threatened and he replied - destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days -
    It wasn't till <u>after</u> the resurrection that His followers then understood what he meant by that.

    As for the earth being flat...errr... beg to differ but you better stick your nose in the old testament, it clearly states the earth is round!
    Chow fer now,
    Dave.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. 2+2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    Hi Dave!&nbsp; Thanks for responding.&nbsp; You say,</p>

    <blockquote>


    &quot;I may be a little late on this topic to add my two cents worth, but here
    goes.....

    After Jesus cracked a fit in a temple for people trading on the Sabbath, he was threatened
    and he replied - destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days -

    It wasn't till <u>after</u> the resurrection that His followers then understood what he
    meant by that.&quot;</p>
    </blockquote>

    Here is Mark 8:31</p>

    <blockquote>


    <font color="#0000FF">And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many
    things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be
    killed, and after three days rise again.</font></p>
    </blockquote>

    Mark 10:32</p>

    <blockquote>


    <font color="#0000FF">And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to
    happen to him sayin, &quot;Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will
    be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and
    deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him,
    and kill him; and after three days he will rise.</font></p>
    </blockquote>

    <font color="#400000">Like I have said before, it is pretty clear that Jesus told not
    only his followers, but evryone that he would rise after three days. Even the Parasees had
    heard about it, and sent soldiers to protect the tomb from robbers.</font></p>
    </body>
    </html>


    ------------------
    The landscape opened like a children's book...
    It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,980
    Okay, 2+2 ... let me try to establish a few things.

    First: "...the disciples didn't show because all that miracle stuff didn't happen like it's written." (2+2, 8/20) Is that what this is about? Fine. You don't have to convince me that the faith parts of the Bible are merely faith declarations; ergo, they are fiction.

    As to this, let me say then, that I think part of why you and I disagree has to do with how we perceive the Jesus movement. For my own part, I think there was a man called Jesus who did lead a movement; I think that movement called for religious reform insofar as Judaism's political value within the contemporary social structure was only apparent to Pharisees. I think that Jesus died for being a revolutionary, and really didn't understand that when a half again of the era of Judaic society had passed, people would be killing each other in his name. Thus we might see the tale of Jesus' resurrection implying only an elevation of his name from a political operative to a martyr.

    Secondly: I grabbed a Latin dictionary from the legal library at my work and found nothing under "ad homynym".

    Third: I'm glad you're amused by my perception that you don't understand drunkenness. And if you don't want me saying you don't get certain things, then don't ask me "Where is the serious part? First you say they were stupid nad now you throw out that they were drunk." (2+2, 8/14) Your question is why they weren't there for the resurrection. Yet you seem to assume that I'm speaking in the terms that I believe in the Resurrection of Christ. As a flesh resurrection, I don't. But a "contextual" resurrection of his movement three days later? I can believe it. And I can believe that the immediate disciples could possibly have been flat-out loaded.

    Fourth: What do you mean by "Don't worry about me, I'm not chasing?" (2+2,8/20) Shall we read the original quote you bowdlerized?

    "It sounds, in a couple of places (e.g.) when you mention how we're all supposed to believe the story, no questions asked), like WHAT YOU'RE PURSUING IS A RECONCILIATION OF TRADITIONAL DATA AND MODERN BEHAVIOR." (Tiassa, 8/18)

    Now, the caps are the important part (I'm not to yelling yet, by any means). This tentative conclusion is meant to tell you what I'm seeing here. It is not an assumption of your motives, but a tentative conclusion drawn from your own statements. What I'm actually offering here is a bit of an olive branch. (Truly, it is futile to apply logic to conduct of faith.)

    So, if you must be snide--"Don't worry about me, I am not chasing"--at least have the dignity to be snide in the context of the statement to which you are retorting.

    And you completely missed the point when I wrote "Logic and conduct cannot come together in modern Christianity." (Tiassa, 8/18) I'll spare you the insult of the brain-dead context explanation.

    Fifth: "I really don't think you could find two people in NYC who would agree with you, that the apostles were all drunk, and that is why they failed to wait for their guru to resurrect himself."

    Okay, you're on. Conduct the survey, get a good sample. What's representative of New York City's population? Maybe a cross-section of a thousand? Two thousand? Or did you want to poll every last person in that town? Now, I'm able to look past the frivolity of such a dumb statement and take it contextually (where it's not so dumb as it is shortsighted). Let me know how the survey comes out. Oh, and send the results to Newsweek . . . that's right up their alley.

    Sixth: If I go back to your original post, you're asking a great question. There wasn't a whole lot more that needed to be said, since the question can only be answered on faith. And if you ask me, no, drunkenness is not my primary theory. But it's a valid one. And that's why I'm still arguing with you. Try giving additional consideration to my 8/13 post which starts with commentary on Ray Bradbury. If you want my best theory, it's right at the end, when I assert that the disciples are actually a political cadre. But you didn't like that idea, apparently. Being drunk is a flippant answer; in case you didn't notice, the 8/13 post about drunkenness is ... say ... just a little shorter than most of my posts?

    I never said that the disciples were stupid, as you assert in your first mocking post (8/14). Re-read the excerpt you included in your 8/13 reply to my longer post from that day. "What I'm getting at ... is that the disciples were not necessarily a brain trust. It is conceivable that they didn't even realize the religious implications of what they were doing."

    Did I say they were stupid? Nooooooo.....

    "First you say they were stupid, and now you throw out that they were drunk." (2+2, 8/14) Accepting the assertion which you have so conveniently compressed into stupidity, either option is fine with me. So they simply dropped the ball or they were drunk. They were human, mind you.

    So what's the question? Who in their right mind would be drunk for his resurrection? Ask yourself a better question: When your political movement collapses at the betrayal and arrest of its leader, wouldn't you be underground, at the very least? Now, is it too much to imagine they were drunk?

    Period.

    Seventh: Stop editing your excerpts like sound-bites. That kind of crap should be left for sleazeballs like Bob Larson, Rush Limbaugh, or CNN.

    Eighth: I don't mind sarcasm or even argumentative hostility. But it bugs me senseless when you're missing the point upon which you base your sarcasm.

    Ninth: Elsewise is definitely a word. Which dictionary are you using? I might remind you that in certain American dictionaries, "internet" is not a word. So, then, how are we communicating?

    Tenth: I'm curious here--what's your favorite novel? An honest answer here will help me interpret the basis of your argument.

    It bugs me that we started out on nearly the same page. I'm sorry it's beyond your assessment of the period in question to consider that maybe some of them were just drunk. In the end, it's not that big a deal to me. I'm still arguing because I don't see what's wrong with the idea.

    Whether or not Jesus himself was resurrected or any other possible event, there are reasonable reasons that I'm sure you and I have given people to excuse our own conduct. "Sorry about Friday, I was drunk." "Sorry about Saturday, I really didn't think you'd do it." Hello? Are you there? What makes Jesus' fans any different from you or I?--excepting the modern social dichotomy.

    Tiassa

    ------------------
    "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
     
  10. Dave Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    Isn't it funny how nobody gets into the miracles performed such as he healed the sick, cured the blind, raised the dead, walked on water, fed 5000 with a couple of dead fish and some bread - but hang-on, he ....resurrected Himself.....Bullsh*t??!!!!!!
     
  11. Odysseus Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Much is made of "inconsistencies" in the Bible by the non-Christians or skeptics. To me that is one of the things that makes it believable. Compare the Bible to the Q'ran; all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and tidy and consistent. That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a comic-book religion. By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point. It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites, but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.) Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time forward to "creep upon its belly." Most surviving species of reptile do exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?
    As for the challenge that all us poor ignorant Chisters are afraid of you formidable logicians, don't make me laugh. There is nothing any more "logical" in your explanations of the basics---why the universe and we exist---than is found in the crudest creation myth. You describe, maybe, and confuse that with explaining.

    ------------------
    What most people call "tolerance" today is in reality nothing more than an absence of values.
     
  12. Odysseus Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Much is made of "inconsistencies" in the Bible by the non-Christians or skeptics. To me that is one of the things that makes it believable. Compare the Bible to the Q'ran; all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and tidy and consistent. That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a comic-book religion. By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point. It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites, but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.) Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time forward to "creep upon its belly." Most surviving species of reptile do exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?
    As for the challenge that all us poor ignorant Chisters are afraid of you formidable logicians,Flash, don't make me laugh. There is nothing any more "logical" in your explanations of the basics---why the universe and we exist---than is found in the crudest creation myth. You describe, that's all, and confuse that with explaining.
     
  13. Odysseus Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Much is made of "inconsistencies" in the Bible by the non-Christians or skeptics. To me that is one of the things that makes it believable. Compare the Bible to the Q'ran; all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and tidy and consistent. That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a comic-book religion. By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point. It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites, but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.) Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time forward to "creep upon its belly." Most surviving species of reptile do exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?
    As for the challenge that all us poor ignorant Chisters are afraid of you formidable logicians,Flash, don't make me laugh. There is nothing any more "logical" in your explanations of the basics---why the universe and we exist---than is found in the crudest creation myth. You describe, that's all, and confuse that with explaining.
     
  14. 2+2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    tiassa, Sorry, too drunk to post a reasonable letter to you. But I will, soon. Thanks for the thoughtful response..."elsewise" is a word???, but wait a second...... Help
    New Search
    Thesaurus
    Site Map
    No entries found that match your query. Here is a list of similar words. 6 words found.
    To view an entry in the list, highlight it and click on GO TO.

    naaa gal...'dis is not a word.
    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary


    ------------------
    The landscape opened like a children's book...
    It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
     
  15. 2+2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    Odysseus[/b]</font></p>
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

    Much is made of &quot;inconsistencies&quot; in the Bible by the non-Christians or
    skeptics.</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">And.............???</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">To me that is one of the things that makes it
    believable.</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Really???</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Compare the Bible to the Q'ran;</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I'd rather keep on with this
    discussion about how Jesus' crew failed to show for the big one.</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and
    tidy and consistent.</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I hate tidy too.......</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a
    comic-book religion.</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I see...too pat for you, no
    inconsistencies.....</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of
    rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE
    WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point.</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Yes the novelist...St Louis!</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the
    character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites,
    but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.)</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Whew...confusing and twisty
    stuff!!</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after
    Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time
    forward to &quot;creep upon its belly.&quot; Most surviving species of reptile do
    exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some
    surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Is this a breakthrough for the
    creationists or WHAT!</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">So why do you think that the
    disciples all failed to show up for the resurrection?&nbsp; Or do you just swoon for
    inconsistencies?</font></p>

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p>
    </body>
    </html>


    ------------------
    The landscape opened like a children's book...
    It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
     
  16. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    I was wondering about Jesus supposedly popping back from the grave. Can anybody really say that he did? I mean, there was no mass media back then. Anybody could show up, claim he was Jesus, pull of a few magic tricks, and the ignorant goat herders would believe him.

    That is...assuming Jesus even existed to begin with. The story of his so-called life parallels too closely older myths and legends that I'm willing to bet the Christians fiddled with to fool the pagans.
     
  17. 2+2,

    You're responding to something different than what was stated.

    Dave said:

    "It wasn't till after the resurrection that His followers then understood what he
    meant by that."

    You responded by citing what Jesus TOLD them.

    There's a big difference between being told something and actually understanding it.

    Much of what was said by Jesus was NOT understood, by his apostles nor anyone else (most of which, by the way, is still misunderstood today.) The connection comes not only after the resurrection, but after pentecost, at which time the things of the spirit to which Jesus referred, were understood.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,980
    2+2, while I haven't given much thought to the topics at hand over the last couple of days, I thought I should close my part of this particular exchange by giving you a reference for "elsewise". Check http://www.dictionary.com; it located "elsewise" as an adverb, meaning "otherwise", in the Websters Revised Standard Dictionary. Couldn't let the opportunity go by.

    thx
    Tiassa

    ------------------
    "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
     
  19. 2+2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    Funny, my server couldn't get that page...but I believe you.

    But still I'm really busy, and look it is 2

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    o in the morning (I have head too much to drink again!), elsewise I would have finished my response to your long post.

    Plus, I'm hooked on Front Page Editor, and I'm looking for a format that won't appear Limbaughian.

    ------------------
    The landscape opened like a children's book...
    It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

    [This message has been edited by 2+2 (edited August 24, 1999).]
     
  20. 2+2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    tiassa
    Okay, 2+2 ... let me try to establish a few things. </p>

    First: &quot;...the disciples didn't show because all that miracle stuff didn't happen
    like it's written.&quot; (2+2, 8/20) Is that what this is about? Fine. You don't have to
    convince me that the faith parts of the Bible are merely faith declarations; ergo, they
    are fiction. </p>

    <font color="#808080">Too bad for me that I didn't understand that from the beginning.
    &nbsp; I am not so bright sometimes.</font></p>

    As to this, let me say then, that I think part of why you and I disagree has to do with
    how we perceive the Jesus movement. For my own part, I think there was a man called Jesus
    who did lead a movement; I think that movement called for religious reform insofar as
    Judaism's political value within the contemporary social structure was only apparent to
    Pharisees. I think that Jesus died for being a revolutionary, and really didn't understand
    that when a half again of the era of Judaic society had passed, people would be killing
    each other in his name. Thus we might see the tale of Jesus' resurrection implying only an
    elevation of his name from a political operative to a martyr. </p>

    <font color="#808080">Now that's fascinating food for thought.&nbsp; What a century
    that must have been.&nbsp; Cults with their secret writings courting and all powerful God
    who wanted sacrifices.&nbsp; Plus all those other cults that were so tempting that were
    run by women.</font></p>

    Secondly: I grabbed a Latin dictionary from the legal library at my work and found
    nothing under &quot;ad homynym&quot;. </p>

    <font color="#808080">Main Entry: <sup>1</sup>ad ho·mi·nem

    Pronunciation: <tt>(')ad-'hä-m&amp;-&quot;nem, -n&amp;m</tt>

    Function: adjective

    Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person

    Date: 1598

    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

    2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer
    to the contentions made </font></p>

    Third: I'm glad you're amused by my perception that you don't understand drunkenness.
    And if you don't want me saying you don't get certain things, then don't ask me
    &quot;Where is the serious part? First you say they were stupid and now you throw out that
    they were drunk.&quot; (2+2, 8/14) Your question is why they weren't there for the
    resurrection. Yet you seem to assume that I'm speaking in the terms that I believe in the
    Resurrection of Christ. As a flesh resurrection, I don't. But a &quot;contextual&quot;
    resurrection of his movement three days later? I can believe it. And I can believe that
    the immediate disciples could possibly have been flat-out loaded. </p>

    <font color="#808080">I see where you are coming from now.&nbsp; Jesus was a political
    figure from the general population, who after death became wildly famous. You were maybe
    that I could figure out that you were coming from &quot;most of what is in the Bible is
    fiction&quot; point of view...but I couldn't make the jump so I didn't think you were
    taking me seriously.&nbsp; Whew.</font></p>

    Fourth: What do you mean by &quot;Don't worry about me, I'm not chasing?&quot;
    (2+2,8/20) Shall we read the original quote you bowdlerized? </p>

    <font color="#808080">Nahh, just forget that.</font></p>

    &quot;It sounds, in a couple of places (e.g.) when you mention how we're all supposed
    to believe the story, no questions asked), like WHAT YOU'RE PURSUING IS A RECONCILIATION
    OF TRADITIONAL DATA AND MODERN BEHAVIOR.&quot; (Tiassa, 8/18) </p>

    Now, the caps are the important part (I'm not to yelling yet, by any means). This
    tentative conclusion is meant to tell you what I'm seeing here. It is not an assumption of
    your motives, but a tentative conclusion drawn from your own statements. What I'm actually
    offering here is a bit of an olive branch. (Truly, it is futile to apply logic to conduct
    of faith.) </p>

    <font color="#808080">I see.&nbsp; You are saying that I am trying to figure out why
    Christians believe some of the things they believe, when their &quot;traditional
    data&quot; doesn't support those beliefs.&nbsp; Yes, I am.&nbsp; You are right.</font></p>

    So, if you must be snide--&quot;Don't worry about me, I am not chasing&quot;--at least
    have the dignity to be snide in the context of the statement to which you are retorting. </p>

    <font color="#808080">It seemed to me that you had more to say about me, than what I
    was talking about.</font></p>

    And you completely missed the point when I wrote &quot;Logic and conduct cannot come
    together in modern Christianity.&quot; (Tiassa, 8/18) I'll spare you the insult of the
    brain-dead context explanation.</p>

    <font color="#808080">(Duh...?)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <small>ouch</small>!</font></p>

    Fifth: &quot;I really don't think you could find two people in NYC who would agree with
    you, that the apostles were all drunk, and that is why they failed to wait for their guru
    to resurrect himself.&quot; </p>

    Okay, you're on. Conduct the survey, get a good sample. What's representative of New
    York City's population? Maybe a cross-section of a thousand? Two thousand? Or did you want
    to poll every last person in that town? Now, I'm able to look past the frivolity of such a
    dumb statement and take it contextually (where it's not so dumb as it is shortsighted).
    Let me know how the survey comes out. Oh, and send the results to Newsweek . . . that's
    right up their alley. </p>

    Sixth: If I go back to your original post, you're asking a great question. There wasn't
    a whole lot more that needed to be said, since the question can only be answered on faith.
    And if you ask me, no, drunkenness is not my primary theory. But it's a valid one. And
    that's why I'm still arguing with you. Try giving additional consideration to my 8/13 post
    which starts with commentary on Ray Bradbury. If you want my best theory, it's right at
    the end, when I assert that the disciples are actually a political cadre. But you didn't
    like that idea, apparently. Being drunk is a flippant answer; in case you didn't notice,
    the 8/13 post about drunkenness is ... say ... just a little shorter than most of my
    posts? </p>

    <font color="#808080">I guess, you have been to subtle for me.&nbsp; In the future I
    will try and read deeper into your posts.</font></p>

    I never said that the disciples were stupid, as you assert in your first mocking post
    (8/14). Re-read the excerpt you included in your 8/13 reply to my longer post from that
    day. &quot;What I'm getting at ... is that the disciples were not necessarily a brain
    trust. It is conceivable that they didn't even realize the religious implications of what
    they were doing.&quot; </p>

    Did I say they were stupid? Nooooooo..... </p>

    &quot;First you say they were stupid, and now you throw out that they were drunk.&quot;
    (2+2, 8/14) Accepting the assertion which you have so conveniently compressed into
    stupidity, either option is fine with me. So they simply dropped the ball or they were
    drunk. They were human, mind you. </p>

    <font color="#808080">All of my posts are based on the assumption that Jesus performed
    miracles, and told his followers that he would rise from the dead in three days.</font></p>

    So what's the question? Who in their right mind would be drunk for his resurrection?
    Ask yourself a better question: When your political movement collapses at the betrayal and
    arrest of its leader, wouldn't you be underground, at the very least? Now, is it too much
    to imagine they were drunk? </p>

    Period. </p>

    Seventh: Stop editing your excerpts like sound-bites. That kind of crap should be left
    for sleazeballs like Bob Larson, Rush Limbaugh, or CNN. </p>

    <font color="#808080">So how's this?&nbsp; I'm not editing, just trying to go from
    point to point, and make it easy to see who said what, and to look ....uh thoughtful.</font></p>

    Eighth: I don't mind sarcasm or even argumentative hostility. But it bugs me senseless
    when you're missing the point upon which you base your sarcasm. </p>

    <font color="#808080">Ok.&nbsp; I will make an effort to be more focused.</font></p>

    Ninth: Elsewise is definitely a word. Which dictionary are you using? I might remind
    you that in certain American dictionaries, &quot;internet&quot; is not a word. So, then,
    how are we communicating? </p>

    <font color="#808080">So &quot;internet&quot; is a word, elsewise we couldn't
    communicate?</font></p>

    Tenth: I'm curious here--what's your favorite novel? An honest answer here will help me
    interpret the basis of your argument. </p>

    <font color="#808080">My favorite novel is <u>Under the Volcano</u> by Malcolm Lowery.
    &nbsp; I've a bunch though.&nbsp; <u>The temple of the Golden </u>Pavilion&nbsp; Yukio
    Mishima.&nbsp; The &quot;Border Trilogy&quot; by Colmac McCarthy is pretty amazing.
    &nbsp; I read anything that Joyce Carol Oates writes, and marvel.&nbsp; I thought that <u>Towards
    the End of Time</u> by John Updike was excellent, but the reviewers didn't.
    &nbsp; Robertson Davies. Garcia-Marquez.</font></p>

    It bugs me that we started out on nearly the same page. I'm sorry it's beyond your
    assessment of the period in question to consider that maybe some of them were just drunk.
    In the end, it's not that big a deal to me. I'm still arguing because I don't see what's
    wrong with the idea. </p>

    <font color="#808080">It's a good idea, really.&nbsp; Clearly something else actually
    happened than what we read about in the Bible.&nbsp; I'm just pulling at threads in the
    story.&nbsp; You are presenting an alternative perspective on who Jesus actually was.</font></p>

    Whether or not Jesus himself was resurrected or any other possible event, there are
    reasonable reasons that I'm sure you and I have given people to excuse our own conduct.
    &quot;Sorry about Friday, I was drunk.&quot; &quot;Sorry about Saturday, I really didn't
    think you'd do it.&quot; Hello? Are you there? What makes Jesus' fans any different from
    you or I?--excepting the modern social dichotomy. </p>

    Tiassa</p>

    <font color="#808080">One difference between me and Jesus fans is that they believe
    that they too will be resurrected.&nbsp; But then &quot;beliefs&quot; change in a
    twinkling of an eye for me and them too.&nbsp; That's true.</font></p>

    <font color="#808080">Mike
    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </font></p>
    </body>
    </html>
     
  21. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Odysseus:

    Oh yes, the difference between describing and explanining. Or maybe you should have instead used the phrase 'explaining away'? Tell me where this logic fails:

    When one faces a question with no answer, one can: a) make up a random answer, b) claim ignorance, c) systematically pursue the answer within the surrounding world, hoping that 'the truth is out there'.

    Pursuing strategy a):
    How many random answers to a question can one conjure? Infinitely many. And they can get as dumb and simplistic, or as elaborate and beautiful, as one can only imagine. What are the chances that any particular one of this infinity even comes close to brushing the real answer? Simple math here: 1/(infinity) = 0. That's right, the chances of any random answer (any random theory) to be correct are 0.

    Pursuing strategy b):
    That's where the agnostics are. It's a reasonable position, and shows that the person had at least contemplated strategy a) and eventually arrived at the inevitable mathematical conclusion. But what are we to do, other than enjoy the bliss of ignorance, and the mystique of the unknown?

    Pursuing strategy c):
    Now we are doing something constructive. We get out of our armchairs, abandon idle speculation and random beliefs, and start digging in hopes of finding a real answer. We do not claim to possess an answer, nor are we guaranteed to ever find one. But at least we got off our butts and went looking. Which, by the way, we (and even you) have been doing all our lives without realizing it. For example, how does one determine the amount of Honey Brown Ale one can consume before passing out?

    <hr>

    Now, I would like to re-emphasize for you that the theories of non-believers are not intended as the ultimate truth (contrast that to your faith) -- they are merely our current working approximation. But if the uncertainty of cutting-edge scientific theories bothers you, you are always free to crawl back into your armchair, shut your eyes to all empirical verifications for those pesky theories, and spin your very own cozy castles in the air. But I'll be damned if you don't end up feeling like an ostrich sticking his head in the sand -- running away from that weird and scary real world into a fake illusion of security and control.

    To crudely paraphrase a fable from a famous Russian poet:
    <pre>
    A sage said to another:
    "None of this is real,
    The world is but a dream".
    The other silently got up,
    walked over, and smacked
    the first one on his forehead
    with a two-by-four.
    "Not to worry," he said,
    "This pain is not for real,
    since this is but a dream."
    </pre>

    Regardless of the universe's true nature, what we have in front of us is here and now, and it's all we have to work with. Thus, perhaps it is not so intellectually dishonest to merely admit to ignorance, and deal with the here and now. In fact, I'd even say it's practical, and common sense (as opposed to burrying one's head into the sand).

    As for the difference between 'explaining' and 'describing' -- I think you got it backwards. Science indeed explains the world through tangible physical entities, physical laws, and causal evolution of the universe. The Bible, on the other hand, describes a purported metaphysical framework, explaining nothing of relevance to real life. Science, for example, provides ample explanation already for 'why we exist'. It does not, of course, explain why the universe as a whole exists. However, I don't believe the Bible gives an answer to that question either. It merely says that God created the universe. But why? (Not to mention -- why does God have to exist in the first place? why does God exist?) Are you seriously claiming answers to these questions???

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 26, 1999).]
     

Share This Page