Evolutionists and credentialism

[Chalnoth]

In describing Christians he mentions the man they worship, who was crucified.

Right, because Christians believed this. What evidence do you have that he learned of Jesus from anybody but Christians?

Can you tell me the name of any other Jewish kings who were executed by Jews and whose teachings also live on today?

That's not necessary. Those teachings need only have lasted until the second century CE. And besides, he made another glaring factual error in that quote: the men of Samos did not kill Pythagoras. How do you know he did not do the same about this "wise king"? He may have been talking about, say, Solomon, and simply been mistaken about the fact that Solomon was not killed by his own people (or, perhaps, he was, and that little tidbit of history only survived outside of Israel, and has since died).

Look, there are far, far too many ways for this particular text to not refer to Jesus, because it does not mention him by name, or any of his specific teachings, or any of his specific actions. Not to mention that the author demonstrated his own untrustworthiness by his mistake about Pythagoras.

 

[Michael1975]

Right, because Christians believed this. What evidence do you have that he learned of Jesus from anybody but Christians?

I believe it is less likely that this was learnt from Christians because if it was, the Christians would have actually told him Jesus' name. This instead gives the impression he knew of Jesus, but only a bit and he didn't think that Jesus was that important. His other words seem to also indicate this.

That's not necessary. Those teachings need only have lasted until the second century CE. And besides, he made another glaring factual error in that quote: the men of Samos did not kill Pythagoras. How do you know he did not do the same about this "wise king"? He may have been talking about, say, Solomon, and simply been mistaken about the fact that Solomon was not killed by his own people (or, perhaps, he was, and that little tidbit of history only survived outside of Israel, and has since died).

Look, there are far, far too many ways for this particular text to not refer to Jesus, because it does not mention him by name, or any of his specific teachings, or any of his specific actions. Not to mention that the author demonstrated his own untrustworthiness by his mistake about Pythagoras.

Pythagoras' death is unknown. It could have been because he was murdered. Plus he is right about Socrates, so I believe he is reliable.
Also, as you said, Solomon was not killed by Jews. No-one has told me the name of a Jewish king of that time period who was killed by Jews and whose teachings lived on to (at the least) the second century. It seems far more likely that this guy is talking about Jesus than anyone else. The description fits Jesus better than any other person I have been told about so far.

 

[Chalnoth]

I believe it is less likely that this was learnt from Christians because if it was, the Christians would have actually told him Jesus' name. This instead gives the impression he knew of Jesus, but only a bit and he didn't think that Jesus was that important. His other words seem to also indicate this.

Why do you think he didn't know the name? Perhaps he just didn't feel it was important to state it.

Pythagoras' death is unknown. It could have been because he was murdered. Plus he is right about Socrates, so I believe he is reliable.

Invalid conclusion. Just becomes somebody is right some of the time does not mean that they are right all of the time. Regardless:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/

There are a variety of stories about his death, but the most reliable evidence (Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus) suggests that violence directed against Pythagoras and his followers in Croton ca. 510 BC, perhaps because of the exclusive nature of the Pythagorean way of life, led him to flee to another Greek city in southern Italy, Metapontum, where he died around 490 BC (Porphyry, VP 54-7; Iamblichus, VP 248 ff.; On the chronology, see Minar 1942, 133-5). There is little else about his life of which we can be confident.

Emphasis mine.

Also, as you said, Solomon was not killed by Jews. No-one has told me the name of a Jewish king of that time period who was killed by Jews and whose teachings lived on to (at the least) the second century. It seems far more likely that this guy is talking about Jesus than anyone else. The description fits Jesus better than any other person I have been told about so far.

Here's the problem. This probability estimate, as with the previous one, is completely and utterly subjective. And you are completely neglecting people whom it might fit that you don't know about.

All I'm asking for here is unequivocal evidence of Jesus. But there isn't any, largely because we're talking about a man who is claimed to have lived some 2000 years ago and wasn't recorded by any contemporary historians. The existence of Christianity muddles things, because religious belief tends to obscure the truth: the emotional attachments that come with religions tend to induce rather strong biases on what people think are true and not true. So once Christianity appeared in earnest, basically all evidence of Jesus that we find is irrelevant.

Because the historians of that age were not careful about documentation, and because he was recorded by no contemporary historians, unequivocal knowledge about whether or not Jesus existed is lost to us.

 

[Michael1975]

Why do you think he didn't know the name? Perhaps he just didn't feel it was important to state it.

From what he says, he sounds like he does not know it.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who intoduced their novel rites"

Invalid conclusion. Just becomes somebody is right some of the time does not mean that they are right all of the time. Regardless:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
Emphasis mine.

But you don't know he isn't right all of the time. As I said, his death is unknown. There are several theories. This guy states the one he thought happened.

Here's the problem. This probability estimate, as with the previous one, is completely and utterly subjective. And you are completely neglecting people whom it might fit that you don't know about.

All I'm asking for here is unequivocal evidence of Jesus. But there isn't any, largely because we're talking about a man who is claimed to have lived some 2000 years ago and wasn't recorded by any contemporary historians. The existence of Christianity muddles things, because religious belief tends to obscure the truth: the emotional attachments that come with religions tend to induce rather strong biases on what people think are true and not true. So once Christianity appeared in earnest, basically all evidence of Jesus that we find is irrelevant.

Because the historians of that age were not careful about documentation, and because he was recorded by no contemporary historians, unequivocal knowledge about whether or not Jesus existed is lost to us.

Fine, you can wait until you find someone who fits the description he talkes about. I thought you wouldn't believe he existed anyway. However I have provided non-biblical evidence which is what I was aked for.

Many documents kept through history were either written or taken care of people with different faiths. It's possible that Christians "meddled" with evidence, but it's just as possible that any other ancient documents have also been "meddled" with. Whether or not you trust them is your choice.

Unequivocal means leaving no doubt. Almost all things are not clear, especially evidence. But as I said, it's your choice to believe he lived or not.

 

[Chalnoth]

From what he says, he sounds like he does not know it.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who intoduced their novel rites"

Sounds as if? Come now, do you really think you have the perspective to get into the mind of an author who lived nearly 2,000 years ago? I think you're grasping.

But you don't know he isn't right all of the time. As I said, his death is unknown. There are several theories. This guy states the one he thought happened.

That's the point: you don't know he is right all the time, and there's reasonable evidence that he isn't.

Fine, you can wait until you find someone who fits the description he talkes about. I thought you wouldn't believe he existed anyway. However I have provided non-biblical evidence which is what I was aked for.

No, I haven't said that. I'm fine with the idea that Jesus existed. It's perfectly plausible. It's just by no means certain. There is no strong evidence for it, but then somebody had to start Christianity, and it could have certainly been him. It's just that it could have been somebody else, too.

Many documents kept through history were either written or taken care of people with different faiths. It's possible that Christians "meddled" with evidence, but it's just as possible that any other ancient documents have also been "meddled" with. Whether or not you trust them is your choice.

Unequivocal means leaving no doubt. Almost all things are not clear, especially evidence. But as I said, it's your choice to believe he lived or not.

While we do know that at least some such documents have been meddled with, in this case it isn't necessary. I'm not so much worried here about the texts being meddled with, but instead where later historians got their information. If they got it from Christians, I simply have no reason to believe them. And there's no reason to believe that any of the historians recording Jesus got their information from anybody but Christians.

If, for example, there was a crucifixion account that was unequivocally of the Jesus described in the Bible, then you'd have a leg to stand on. Or a contemporary historian describing the man and his followers at the time Jesus would have been alive. Either would be a good example of evidence of his existence (though not of his miracles).

 

[Tomk80]

From what he says, he sounds like he does not know it.
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who intoduced their novel rites"

All the more reasons to disregard him. He likely is not just a copy of the source (Christians), but a copy of hearsay of the source. Historically useless.

But you don't know he isn't right all of the time. As I said, his death is unknown. There are several theories. This guy states the one he thought happened.

Which should give you some indication on the accurateness of his knowledge. It is either inaccurate or we cannot determine the accuracy. In both cases, useless as a historical source.

Fine, you can wait until you find someone who fits the description he talkes about. I thought you wouldn't believe he existed anyway. However I have provided non-biblical evidence which is what I was aked for.

Of dubious origins. Which is not what was asked for. Look, if you want to make a historical case based on non-biblical evidence, these sources need to be original and we need to be able to estimate the accuracy of the source. Your sources fail in this respect.

Many documents kept through history were either written or taken care of people with different faiths. It's possible that Christians "meddled" with evidence, but it's just as possible that any other ancient documents have also been "meddled" with. Whether or not you trust them is your choice.

Unequivocal means leaving no doubt. Almost all things are not clear, especially evidence. But as I said, it's your choice to believe he lived or not.

Sure, but in historical sources we can make an assessment of how accurate a source likely is. Take Ceasar as an example. We have documents that are most likely written by him, we have letters and documents of both his allies as his opponents, giving descriptions of Caesar independantly from each other, we have statues where he is depicted. This makes a very complete reconstruction of his life possible. As has been shown above, pythagoras is harder. We have enough evidence to be very sure he existed, but much less evidence about what his life looked like.

Compare that to Jesus, where the only independant documentation is the gospels (as a whole, it is doubtful that they have been written indepently from each other). All other evidence you presented is either inaccurate or doubtful in accuracy (Bar-Eparion) or is not independant (Lucian). Hence, the only thing we really have to go on is the gospels.

 

[Michael1975]

Sounds as if? Come now, do you really think you have the perspective to get into the mind of an author who lived nearly 2,000 years ago? I think you're grasping.

Sounds as if was the wrong way to say it. Let me start again.
Because he avoids using Jesus' name twice, it's much more likely he didn't know it than he didn't feel the need to say it.

That's the point: you don't know he is right all the time, and there's reasonable evidence that he isn't.

Such as?

No, I haven't said that. I'm fine with the idea that Jesus existed. It's perfectly plausible. It's just by no means certain. There is no strong evidence for it, but then somebody had to start Christianity, and it could have certainly been him. It's just that it could have been somebody else, too.

Fair enough.

While we do know that at least some such documents have been meddled with, in this case it isn't necessary. I'm not so much worried here about the texts being meddled with, but instead where later historians got their information. If they got it from Christians, I simply have no reason to believe them. And there's no reason to believe that any of the historians recording Jesus got their information from anybody but Christians.

If, for example, there was a crucifixion account that was unequivocally of the Jesus described in the Bible, then you'd have a leg to stand on. Or a contemporary historian describing the man and his followers at the time Jesus would have been alive. Either would be a good example of evidence of his existence (though not of his miracles).

Fair enough. There is no unequivoval evidence of his resurrection because it's possible that those people lied. Once again, our beliefs decide our decision.

 

[Tomk80]

Wait, the gospels is what we are talking about. I asked why the gospels aren't valid evidence and you say it is because they believed in the gospels? One of us must have made a mistake somewhere.

We were talking about the validity of Lucius as a source, right? But Lucius as a source really only says that there were Christians (ie, people believing in the gospels). From the way of writing, it even appears that he did not have personal contact with Christians, but relied on hearsay about them. Hence, Lucius as a source depends wholly on what other people reported on what Christians believed and is not an independent source. In other words, Lucius is useless in establishing the historicity of Jesus.

Now we are getting somewhere.
I typed the essene into wikipedia but I could not find the name of any Jewish Kings who were crucified by Jews in it. Perhaps you could lead me there.

As I said before, he doesn't need to be crucified in reality, given that we can make an estimate of the accuracy of Bar-Serapion. That estimate makes him an unreliable source.

Also, Jesus was not a real Jewish king. He was a messianic figure during the beginning of the first century, of whom his followers proclaimed he was a king. That is all that is needed, a messianic figure of whom some of his followers proclaimed him king. The source is historically useless and while it might talk about Jesus, this can by no means be established without doubt.

 

[Michael1975]

All the more reasons to disregard him. He likely is not just a copy of the source (Christians), but a copy of hearsay of the source. Historically useless.

He is more likely to be someone who knew (although not much) of Jesus.
His negative opinion of him makes it very unlikely that this was based upon hearsay. If told by Christians, they would have told him of Jesus in a way that made Jesus sound like the greatest thing on earth (which he was), because they are Christians. That would be the same if there are others involved. The only way he could have a negative opinion of Jesus is if he only knew Jesus as one of the blasphemus people of that age (which would also explain why he does not know that much of Jesus, him thinking Jesus was just another Jew commiting blasphemy).

Which should give you some indication on the accurateness of his knowledge. It is either inaccurate or we cannot determine the accuracy. In both cases, useless as a historical source.

He said the Athenians put Socrates to death. He was right.
He said Samos buried Pythagoras. For all we know, he could have been right.
He said that a Jewish King was killed by Jews. If this king is Jesus, he was right.
He cannot be proven wrong as a source. Whether or not he is right about how Pythagoras died does little to change the fact that he mentions Jesus, something that couldn't happen if Jesus didn't exist.

Of dubious origins. Which is not what was asked for. Look, if you want to make a historical case based on non-biblical evidence, these sources need to be original and we need to be able to estimate the accuracy of the source. Your sources fail in this respect.

This is first time i'm hearing that the source's accuracy needs to be estimated.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Michael, I've got to jump in and mention a few things.

1) When you first appeared in this thread, you were respectful and asked good questions and listened to the answers. Funnily enough, the replies you received were also respectful, because most people here (irrespective of religious views) respect someone with an open mind. But the moment you perceived slights against your deeply held beliefs, your demeanor changed and the whole tone of the debate followed. I haven't been here that long but long enough to know that many of the people you're arguing with (Baggins, Chalnoth and Tomk80, mainly) are reasonable and intelligent people. Try acting less like... well, a teenage fundamentalist, and you might learn some things. Just a suggestion.

2) Speaking as a teacher and a Christian (well, according to me, at least -- the CF rules and many more fundie Christians disagree), I can say that I was not offended by Baggins's comment, because I understood it to be a shot (a cheap shot, perhaps, but also a valid one) at the fundamentalist diploma mills and indoctrination camps that pose as legitimate houses of education. Several people with different beliefs and backgrounds understood his point; you didn't. Does that tell you anything?

3) You seem to keep missing the key point about the evidence for Jesus business.

3a) Firstly, there are (at least) "two Jesuses": the historical human and the mythologized focus of the Christian religion. (BTW, "myth" -- in its proper sense -- does not mean what you think it means.) No-one doubts that the latter exists. It would be pretty dumb to do so on a site called "Christian Forums"! So please forget that little semantic tapdance you were doing earlier -- it's quite clear that when we're talking about evidence for the existence of Jesus, we're talking about the former case: the historical human who walked (or didn't) around Roman-occupied Judea circa 30 CE.

3b) The gospels are articles of faith, not historical record. To be sure that a human called Jesus existed, we need something other than the gospels. Furthermore, that something has to be independent of the gospels. That's going to be tricky, because the human Jesus of Nazareth (assuming he existed) wasn't particularly important. Yeah, he caused a kerfuffle in a backwater of the Roman empire for a short time, but big whoop. He's not going to be recorded by Suetonius alongside the Caesars. The mythologized Jesus, however, is a very big deal indeed. And He may well appear in many historical records, because He existed and became very important. But He is not evidence that the human He was supposedly based off ever existed.

So, bottom line: writings from the late first century about Christian beliefs don't actually count as evidence (except as evidence of something we already know: that Christians existed and believed stuff). We'd need something like a Roman record: "Date X: three Jews crucified; two petty criminals, one Jesus -- called the Christ -- for sedition, being hailed by mob as king of the Jews, riot narrowly averted by his execution" signed by Pilate. That would be pretty conclusive evidence from an impartial third party. But frankly, it's a tall order because, as I said, Yeshua the human wasn't important in the grand scheme of things. Now, if such a clinching piece of evidence existed, I'd expect it to be cited. In the absence of such citation, I conclude that it doesn't exist. Instead, we have various less useful bits of information that scholars try to piece together; as I understand it, most conclude that the human Yeshua existed, but some disagree. That doesn't mean that it's an open-and-shut case with definitive "smoking gun" evidence available.

4) A few more things about the historical Jesus...

4a) It might help to think about similar examples, such as King Arthur and Robin Hood. Mythologized, they certainly exist, but the humans...? I believe the current consensus about Arthur is that he may have been a Roman or Romanized general; Robin Hood may well be an amalgamation of various legends. The stories grow from those roots until history and the story we have now are quite different. It is possible that the same is true of Jesus.

(For the record, I believe in a human Jesus roughly given by the gospel record, although I'm open to the amalgamation possibility. It seems to much of a stretch to believe the whole thing was entirely fabricated. But that's just my belief.)

4b) As Frumious has pointed out, whether or not Jesus the human existed, or was the same Jesus as is recorded in the gospels, matters very little to many people (religious and otherwise). If it matters to you, cool. There's no evidence that Jesus didn't exist historically, so go ahead and believe that. Defend that belief, if you want. But don't say something that isn't true. Conclusive, independent, primary-source records of Jesus of Nazareth don't exist.

4c) Your misinterpretation of that particular wiki quote (These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility) has been pretty well covered: the biography of Jesus comes from the gospels, the non-biblical sources are for context (so the existence of Jesus is still contingent on the gospels). The one thing I'd like to add is that it is possible to assume the basic veracity of the gospel record without "theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility". Hence, that last sentence does NOT mean that the gospels are necessarily (historically) reliable or should be considered proof of Jesus' existence. It simply means that those who want to build a biography of Jesus -- assuming a priori that he existed -- start with the gospels as human documents (and try to set aside religious views). In fact, that pretty well demonstrates the lack of other sources: why would they start with the gospels -- statements of faith, not history -- if better historical records were available?

5) OK, I think that's all for the moment. As I said all the way back at 1), you've shown the ability to be thoughtful and open-minded. I've written all this with that in mind; thanks for reading it that way.

 

[Michael1975]

Michael, I've got to jump in and mention a few things.

Yep.

1) When you first appeared in this thread, you were respectful and asked good questions and listened to the answers. Funnily enough, the replies you received were also respectful, because most people here (irrespective of religious views) respect someone with an open mind. But the moment you perceived slights against your deeply held beliefs, your demeanor changed and the whole tone of the debate followed. I haven't been here that long but long enough to know that many of the people you're arguing with (Baggins, Chalnoth and Tomk80, mainly) are reasonable and intelligent people. Try acting less like... well, a teenage fundamentalist, and you might learn some things. Just a suggestion.

You mean when I said that Jesus does exist? Should I not have said Jesus existed? My mistake. Remind me to not stand up for my beliefs again...
And as for being open minded, I have ackowledged what people have said, respected what they said, and (if I didn't believe the same thing) disagreed with them. People disagree with each other. There are lots of people here to believe different things. This is also general apologetics. I know you said you're new, but you should have realised that by now...

2) Speaking as a teacher and a Christian (well, according to me, at least -- the CF rules and many more fundie Christians disagree), I can say that I was not offended by Baggins's comment, because I understood it to be a shot (a cheap shot, perhaps, but also a valid one) at the fundamentalist diploma mills and indoctrination camps that pose as legitimate houses of education. Several people with different beliefs and backgrounds understood his point; you didn't. Does that tell you anything?

Well, I didn't because I knew nothing about fundamental schools teaching inadequate science. If you had actually read the later posts, you'd have realised that. But I guess posting this long message must have taken up a lot of your time, huh?

3) You seem to keep missing the key point about the evidence for Jesus business.

Again, read recent posts.

3a) Firstly, there are (at least) "two Jesuses": the historical human and the mythologized focus of the Christian religion. (BTW, "myth" -- in its proper sense -- does not mean what you think it means.) No-one doubts that the latter exists. It would be pretty dumb to do so on a site called "Christian Forums"! So please forget that little semantic tapdance you were doing earlier -- it's quite clear that when we're talking about evidence for the existence of Jesus, we're talking about the former case: the historical human who walked (or didn't) around Roman-occupied Judea circa 30 CE.

Obviously we are talking about the historical Jesus. And that little "tapdance" earlier was someone trying to point out a grammatical error in my words, and failing.

3b) The gospels are articles of faith, not historical record. To be sure that a human called Jesus existed, we need something other than the gospels. Furthermore, that something has to be independent of the gospels. That's going to be tricky, because the human Jesus of Nazareth (assuming he existed) wasn't particularly important. Yeah, he caused a kerfuffle in a backwater of the Roman empire for a short time, but big whoop. He's not going to be recorded by Suetonius alongside the Caesars. The mythologized Jesus, however, is a very big deal indeed. And He may well appear in many historical records, because He existed and became very important. But He is not evidence that the human He was supposedly based off ever existed.

You mean like what I have given?

So, bottom line: writings from the late first century about Christian beliefs don't actually count as evidence (except as evidence of something we already know: that Christians existed and believed stuff). We'd need something like a Roman record: "Date X: three Jews crucified; two petty criminals, one Jesus -- called the Christ -- for sedition, being hailed by mob as king of the Jews, riot narrowly averted by his execution" signed by Pilate. That would be pretty conclusive evidence from an impartial third party. But frankly, it's a tall order because, as I said, Yeshua the human wasn't important in the grand scheme of things. Now, if such a clinching piece of evidence existed, I'd expect it to be cited. In the absence of such citation, I conclude that it doesn't exist. Instead, we have various less useful bits of information that scholars try to piece together; as I understand it, most conclude that the human Yeshua existed, but some disagree. That doesn't mean that it's an open-and-shut case with definitive "smoking gun" evidence available.

Your point being?

4) A few more things about the historical Jesus...

Yep.

4a) It might help to think about similar examples, such as King Arthur and Robin Hood. Mythologized, they certainly exist, but the humans...? I believe the current consensus about Arthur is that he may have been a Roman or Romanized general; Robin Hood may well be an amalgamation of various legends. The stories grow from those roots until history and the story we have now are quite different. It is possible that the same is true of Jesus.

You said "mythologized they certainly exist". That is what that tapdance was about. Someone was saying that it is grammatically wrong to say a myth exists. I was saying otherwise.

(For the record, I believe in a human Jesus roughly given by the gospel record, although I'm open to the amalgamation possibility. It seems to much of a stretch to believe the whole thing was entirely fabricated. But that's just my belief.)

Good for you.

4b) As Frumious has pointed out, whether or not Jesus the human existed, or was the same Jesus as is recorded in the gospels, matters very little to many people (religious and otherwise). If it matters to you, cool. There's no evidence that Jesus didn't exist historically, so go ahead and believe that. Defend that belief, if you want. But don't say something that isn't true. Conclusive, independent, primary-source records of Jesus of Nazareth don't exist.

Actually, it turns out it does not actually mean much to me, but I still provided the evidence asked of me.

4c) Your misinterpretation of that particular wiki quote (These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility) has been pretty well covered: the biography of Jesus comes from the gospels, the non-biblical sources are for context (so the existence of Jesus is still contingent on the gospels). The one thing I'd like to add is that it is possible to assume the basic veracity of the gospel record without "theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility". Hence, that last sentence does NOT mean that the gospels are necessarily (historically) reliable or should be considered proof of Jesus' existence. It simply means that those who want to build a biography of Jesus -- assuming a priori that he existed -- start with the gospels as human documents (and try to set aside religious views). In fact, that pretty well demonstrates the lack of other sources: why would they start with the gospels -- statements of faith, not history -- if better historical records were available?

Covered. Well, the first part at least. The second is what you think.

5) OK, I think that's all for the moment. As I said all the way back at 1), you've shown the ability to be thoughtful and open-minded. I've written all this with that in mind; thanks for reading it that way.

Ok. Open minded means to be accepting of other's views right? Well, I have not been disrespectful to other's beliefs. If so show me when, because I know it's a mistake.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yep.



You mean when I said that Jesus does exist? Should I not have said Jesus existed? My mistake. Remind me to not stand up for my beliefs again...

No one has a problem with you believing Jesus existed. I believe that myself. No one has a problem with you defending your beliefs. My problem and I think that of many others is that you have tried to defend your belief with what you think is evidence but is really not. This is a debate forum. When you make statements that others can show to be wrong you can expect to challenged especially if you continue to repeat them.

 

[Baggins]

So if you assumed everyone else other than me would understand, why are you now going crazy about the fact that I didn't?

Because you said that my post said I thought all Christians are stupid.

If you can't see why I might be angry about that I think you need to learn a little more empathy.

It was an innocuous post casting doubt on whether a teacher has ever stated that particular philosophical saw in real belief, further pointing out that to use it so one would have to be stupid or deliberately using it to pour scorn on science.

How that came to be twisted into some sort of Baggins vs Christianity vendetta escapes me.

 

[Michael1975]

Because you said that my post said I thought all Christians are stupid.

If you can't see why I might be angry about that I think you need to learn a little more empathy.

It was an innocuous post casting doubt on whether a teacher has ever stated that particular philosophical saw in real belief, further pointing out that to use it so one would have to be stupid or deliberately using it to pour scorn on science.

How that came to be twisted into some sort of Baggins vs Christianity vendetta escapes me.

It came into this because of a mistake I made, although it wasn't 100% my fault, as I said. I tried to apologise, but you wouldn't let it go. I can't understand that.

 

[Michael1975]

No one has a problem with you believing Jesus existed. I believe that myself. No one has a problem with you defending your beliefs. My problem and I think that of many others is that you have tried to defend your belief with what you think is evidence but is really not. This is a debate forum. When you make statements that others can show to be wrong you can expect to challenged especially if you continue to repeat them.

I'm glad that you respect my beliefs and I respect yours (open minded).
However, I looked back and failed to see how the two recent pieces of evidence were proven false. But if everyone is getting [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off that I keep on going on about it, i'll stop.

 

[Danyc]

I'm glad that you respect my beliefs and I respect yours (open minded).
However, I looked back and failed to see how the two recent pieces of evidence were proven false. But if everyone is getting [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off that I keep on going on about it, i'll stop.

Micheal, I know what you're talking about.

However, the argument here is not whether those two pieces of evidence have been proven false. It is whether those two pieces of evidence have been proven true.

Try to understand that, yes, those sources speak of men who may very well be Jesus.

The problem is, they do not say "Jesus". They simply speak of a man. And that isn't good enough for historical proof of Jesus' existence. Sorry.

 

[Danyc]

Well, I didn't because I knew nothing about fundamental schools teaching inadequate science. If you had actually read the later posts, you'd have realised that. But I guess posting this long message must have taken up a lot of your time, huh?



.

Michael, I'm sure you simply do not realize it, but your first posts did not come across like this one does.

Krikkit spoke to you in a respectful tone, but when you repliedto him, you were not respectful. This is what Krikkit meant when he said that your demeanor changed--and so did the debate.

Little things like this are what cause this to happen. As I stated before, I am sure you simply did not realize it.

 

[Baggins]

After reading your post, I see that there are two things you assumed, and therefore that I must have assumed too.

1. That it is a Christian Fundamentalist school - How am I supposed to know that if you just said Christian college? I didn't know this stuff about Christian Fundamentalist schools not properly teaching science until later anyway, but when I did it didn't change my view yet because your post said Christian college, not Christian fundamentalist college.

You could always try keeping your accusations of bigotry and lies to yourself until you have understood what is being talked about. I didn't notice anyone else jumping in with such accusations, and you could have asked what I meant nicely at the start, but you cast yourself as Christianity's defender and the rest is a rather sad series of posts.

Lesson: find out what is going on before making assumptions and a prat of yourself.

2. That I'd know that you're assuming the teacher knows the statement is wrong - You should have included that too. In fact, if you did, this would've all been avoided.

I would have thought everyone with an IQ of above 50 would realise this statement is wrong. My bad. I was going on exactly the same information as you were; a rather dubious story.

This is basically what you were saying: Christian teachers of fundamentalist schools who know the statement is false but teach it anyway because of the anti-science view they have, which was over exaggerating it anyway.

You obviously haven't had much experience of what occurs in those kinds of places.

But by not including that you are assuming the teacher knows the statement is false, which I did not know because firstly,I live in the UK and secondly, when I was told, because you never said fundamentalist, I still never realised what you were actually trying to say.

I can't second guess the educational standings, nationality and age of every poster on this board. You are the Newbie, it is up to you to make sure you understand what is going on before you start accusing people of all sorts. You didn't and you got held out to dry for it, that is fair enough.

If you were civil in the first place I would have explained what I meant.

It was always slightly misleading. I didn't include the slightly because I couldn't be bothered until seeing how stressed you are becoming.

I think defending myself against accusations of lying and bigotry from a spotty oik are well worth getting excised about.

And you are still not letting it go. Stop crying and grow up. It's so sad that I have to say that to a 43 year old man. Sheesh!!

And that statement provides ample evidence that you are a 14 year old boy.

When you have a few more years under your belt you will realise that you have few things of more worth than your good name. And it is worth a bit of time and effort putting a 14 year old pipsqueek who doesn't understand what is going on in his place to protect that.

 

[Baggins]

It came into this because of a mistake I made, although it wasn't 100% my fault, as I said. I tried to apologise, but you wouldn't let it go. I can't understand that.

You accused me of serious things, things that I actually find distasteful and bigoted and you haven't withdrawn those statements clearly. You've dissembled and tap danced around the fact that you accused me of bigotry and lying, I find that difficult to understand and impossible to let lie.

From reading your posts it seems that you now accept that I don't think that all Christians, all Christian teachers or even all Christian teachers in fundamentalist colleges are stupid, but you have to read a fair amount into your posts to see this and you have continued to couch these grudging acceptances with insults.

On talk board you have little beyond your reputation, I think I will continue to defend mine against slights such as yours, forgive me.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes your post was misleading. The fact that you won't let it go just proves my point about you trying to guide the argument away from it's really about. I wonder why...

Quit it, you two. Please!