Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > The existence of Jesus |
Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 25 2004, 05:35 PM | ||||
Awaiting Rameus' article, let us start with searching for evidence or counterevidence regarding the physical existence of Jesus. The authorship of Paul in regard to II Corinthians is not disputed. So let us look for example at II Cor. 5:16:
Is the existence of the 'Jerusalem church' who knew Jesus personally - James is sometimes even called his brother - nonsense? Source: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulvpeter.html |
Posted by: Lokmer Nov 25 2004, 07:42 PM | ||||||
Actually, authorship of this passage is highly disputed. Some good primers on the dispute: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.shtml http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/reply-to-craig.html Both by Robert M. Price, editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism and author of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man -Lokmer |
Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 25 2004, 08:37 PM |
I see no need to entertain the interpolation hypothesis in this case. The passage can be translated as "From now on we know no man according to the flesh; if indeed we have known Christ according to the flesh, we no longer know him (so)." In fact, this reading is more in line with the KJV and several other translations. It is certainly not clear that this is some kind of putdown on the Jerusalem church, and it would be absurd in the context. The passage seems to indicate how Paul sees the object of his faith. He once saw Christ without faith, and now he sees him differently. |
Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 08:43 AM | ||
Sorry! That's about I Cor. 15. |
Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 09:04 AM | ||
Look also at 5:7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight*) The whole context is Paul having a conflict with the Jerusalem church - which the link provided sustains. So - I assume you do believe that the Jerusalem church existed - the only difference between Paul and James was that the former talked about faith and the latter about (Jewish) works. That none of them knew Jesus, and that the brothership of James in regard to Jesus is devised. If this 'brother' calling is meant spiritually, why did they call James in particular like that (it's not Peter his brother)? How did this idea settle that James was Jesus brother? Why is this James more important than James the brother of John? How did he became an authority? *Paul uses the word 'sight' in stead of 'works'. |
Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 26 2004, 10:09 AM | ||||
This doesn’t support your interpretation of 5:16.
Your are asking questions that don’t have any clear answers. We have very little reliable information on the Jerusalem church, what it preached and its organizational structure. There is no need to read the brother reference as James being Jesus’ blood brother. |
Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 11:28 AM | ||
Why not? Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55; Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 12; I Corinthians 15:7 Do you deny that Jesus did have blood brothers? |
Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 26 2004, 11:29 AM | ||||||
My understanding of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity includes the idea that siblings of Jesus were siblings by adoption only. Their mother was not Mary, but a previous wife of Joseph. |
Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 11:39 AM | ||
Hehe. Yes, that brings my to the next 'mythological' person, Mary. If James had only a spiritual relationship with Jesus, how about Mary? She wasn't his mother neither? The "Jesus Myth" theory smells like shit IMHO. |
Posted by: skankboy Nov 26 2004, 12:36 PM | ||
I think Chris Rock says it best in the movie "Dogma":
|
Posted by: AUB Nov 27 2004, 07:34 AM |
Savme This is not going to be solved by endlessly dissecting scripture, the most unreliable of sources. This is about evidence, what is there for Jesus? none. What is there for Peter, James and the Judean church? None, Paul can hardly be trusted, he admits to lying, and you know him to be a scheming bastard, any sane person would need much more than obscure references. You cant make silly arguments about semantics Vs literal meanings, when we have nothing else to go on, you are not obligated to reach a conclusion, to believe in a Jesus, or dismiss him, its okay to be agnostic, its doesn't really matter. The Virgin Mary thing is a pagan motif, period, don't worry about it. Historical or not, nothing of a real person remains in the gospels, and there's little of her in them as it is, and none match the "virgin" model. Finally, I just find it annoying that people think a omnipotent and "good" god expects us to except a salvation plan that requires us to believe in a long distant event that resembles every other mythical and symbolic "incident" that clutter the pages of history. And to put our trust in such slim, contradictory and obscure passages of unconfirmed and unscientific ramblings. Surely a great and just god would value reason, logic and evidence? Yet we get none and are scorned by the theist for thinking that without such things its unreasonable to expect us to base our entire lives on a sentence or 2, of questionable origin, motives and derivation. Why is it good to be gullible, blindly trusting and uncritical? Does god what a heaven full of people with the metal makeup of 2 year olds? Is he that insecure? |
Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 27 2004, 12:20 PM | ||||
I see the Gospels as fictional narratives built mostly out of the OT, unknown to Paul, since it wasn't created yet. There is no reliable history, or rather, no way to extract reliable history out of the Gospels. See Helms Gospel Fictions, Price's Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Brodie's Crucial Bridge, etc. The Jesus of the Gospels is demonstrably a fictional person. Whether or not this fictional character represents someone who had a real existence is impossible to say. The object of Paul's faith, the earliest Christianity we know about, seems to not have existed to Paul in the recent past. I don't think it's possible, using Paul, to pinpoint Jesus in any time period, which lends support for the mythical interpretation. |
Posted by: AUB Nov 27 2004, 04:30 PM | ||
It depends on which doctrine is subscribed to, if you want Mary to stay a virgin (for pagan motif reasons) then James and the other brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the gospel have to be "spiritual" relations or whatever. But the gospel accounts do not support this interpretation, as those who wrote them had no idea Mary was to be perpetually "virginised" (and the original Luke and Mat probably lacked the nativity completely, hence the genealogies) which was a roman invention. To understand which doctrine can be pealed away you have to study the order of their development, the linear christology. A simple analysis of the N.T. doctrinal contradictions reveals which elements are later interpolations, or post biblical addictions. Any further questions? |
Posted by: spamandham Nov 28 2004, 10:01 AM | ||
The Catholic church today reserves the title 'brother' for those who have chosen a monastic role, even though all members are said to be brothers and sisters in Christ. That church also claims tradition that goes back to the first century (or earlier). Why do you assume such titles were not used in the first century as well? |
Posted by: Karl Nov 28 2004, 06:58 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kenneth Humphreys lists several "Jesuses" at his website: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm Extra-biblical evidence for a god-man named "Jesus" of "Nazareth" does not exist, nor does any for his alleged family. The NT does not prove itself to be a completely historical fact, any more than the novel 'Gone With the Wind' proves itself to be a historical fact, even though both contain reference to actual historical individuals. Massey develops the Ben-Pandira personage as being a possible physical model which contributed to the construction of the "Jesus" character of the "gospels" (in addition to Pagan sources):
Herod died in 4BCE, Quirinius didn't reign until about c.6CE. This gap renders the Luke gospel account historically impossible. Mark 1 has "Jesus" going off to the wilderness after his baptism. This is contradicted in John 1 & 2, which has "Jesus" going to a wedding. It looks like the "divinely inspired" writers had trouble getting the facts straight. Despite being one of the more well-documented periods in ancient history, there is NO extra-biblical record of the alleged slaughter of the infants in Matthew 2:16. There is no extra-biblical corroboration of the fantastic aberration of Nature which allegedly occurred at "Jesus" crucifixion:
Surely this would have been noted and recorded by others, as would the alleged opening of the graves and the
But despite the errancy, incongruity, lack of extra-biblical corroborative evidence, etc. it's still considered the "word" of "perfect" biblegod. (and I didn't even touch on the error and archaeologically unsupportable Myths of the OT) The greatest evidence of biblical untruth however, comes from the believers themselves.
According to the following verse, ANY and ALL believers should be doing exactly what Jesus did in the above cited verses:
"JP", MG, MD4, CIL, et al,......it is up to you to provide documented veridical evidence in support of the above verse as it applies to YOU personally, who claim to be believers. Of course, if you were unable to demonstrate said evidence, there would only be two possibilities: 1. You weren't really believers. 2. You were lied to. In the event that nothing happened, you would also be forced to apply this:
wouldn't you? Of course, in this case we are dealing with "THE lord". (but it could also apply to individuals such as the late Dr. Richard Eby, who said that he would not die again before "Jesus" came back, but ended up passing on on 12/26/2002) In the event that nothing happened, and in light of demonstrated biblical errancy and incongruity, the "believers" would also have to ask themselves the following questions: 1. What right do I have to promulgate this as "truth"? ....and, more importantly in today's society: 2. What right to I have to attempt to foist associated dogma/morality/"commandments" on society as a whole, (via legislation, etc.) as "the only way" if the book upon which it is based isn't even inerrant or "Jesus'" promise of John 14:12 isn't working in my own life? We'll eagerly await your proofs.... K |
Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 29 2004, 03:03 PM |
So at one side of the coin there is
* Compare it with a table full of delicious foods and spices and me as a hungry poor boy. Most of you are in a hurry to tell me that it's all poisoned, and are friendly and patient enough, to tell me what kind of poison, what the influence is, who did it poison, who were poisoned too, and so on. So, you eagerly want - me - to take the blanket and throw everything away. I've been throwing away some things, but I'm still hesitating about other things. Where do you want to replace this food with? Do I have to make "distrust" my mindset and leave with an empty stomach, or is there reason to hope for a table, even more abundantly than the first? |
Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 29 2004, 03:09 PM | ||
I love that Saviour... Replace it with unpoisoned food. Steal it, beg for it, but go get it! Now about undesigned coincidences...I do that quite often. Haven't you ever said/wrote something that meant a lot more than what you intended? I have looked back on some of my poetry and posts here and thought to myself...wow, that is what I think but it really wasn't what I was thinking at the time. Surely that has happened to you too. |
Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 29 2004, 05:01 PM | ||||
How do you show it is history? I assume you’re talking here about John 20:14, which is part of the John’s Passion narrative, which contradicts the other three. And in fact, John seems to be using the Book of Tobit here to construct what Jesus is saying and Mary’s response in his Gospel. Much of Jesus’ language seems to be taken over from Raphael, and Mary’s response is similar to Tobias’ when he first saw Raphael. See Helm’s Gospel Fictions, 146-7.
I doubt there ever will be, since there is so little to go on in reconstructing the origins of Christianity without assuming a founder (even with assuming it). There is simply no way to extract history from the Gospels, and Paul is no help. Nearly every detail of the story is demonstrably built out of the OT, even minor details like Mary not recognizing Jesus. |
Posted by: spamandham Nov 29 2004, 06:27 PM |
Someone familiar with the Old Testament ate some mushrooms and poppy extract, and wrote down their psychotic visions. Problem solved. |
Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 29 2004, 06:45 PM | ||
Strangely enough, that is similar to a theory put forward by John Allegro in his The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Allegro was the only atheist working on the Dead Sea Scrolls when they were discovered, and also the only one to publish any of his work early. |
Posted by: AUB Nov 30 2004, 07:14 AM |
Saviourmachine What are you current thoughts on these matters? Surely you can't be basing any "case" for xtian mythological characters on such flimsy arguments? What happened to the intelligent questions and desire for truth? You appear to be backsliding if your emotional and irrational pull towards belief has driven you to assert such absurdity as demanding a "coherent alternative framework" for something completely made up. The Gospels accounts debunk themselves, all you have is special pleading, don't let go of any intellectual integrity you gained by these childish xtian arguments, your reason knows them to be false. Xtianty has no case, it never did, and we don’t have to answer such silly points, when the rest of it has been dealt with, very thoroughly. Your giving xtianity too much benefit of the doubt, and you're left clutching at straws, just present what points you think we haven't dealt with. Religious creation myths were just as un-exceptable, irrational, and clearly a product of human culture before evolution supplied the proper model for our origins, and was rejected by many thinkers entirely on the grounds that its just flipping stupid. The prize doesn't go to the best explanation, but one that actually makes sense within the context of the natural laws, and has evidence for it. I could offer you no alternative for the gospel events, but an intelligent mind would still pronounce them absurd, contradictory and illogical, on their own merits. Nor is this a race to explain what is only of academic interest to the historian of 1st century Judea, as even if there was a real event, its is not of the importance the xtian would claim, that much is already established. I fear too much study on this will only leave you disappointed. Helping humanity out of it's dillusions is a far more rewarding enterprise. Their cause is of secondary importance. Evolution is the superior alternative to creation myths because it describes events that really happened. We are here, and had to be formed via a process that demands explanation, but religions are always being created, that is nothing special. (Why think xtiany is such a big deal? Just because other do? Study other religions, and philosophies, it's mediocre at best) Look around you, use your imagination, past is prologue, and there are no unique events in history. See a cult created in front of your eyes, from pop culture myths such as UFOs and new age junk, and imagine the same thing happening in first century Judea, with Popular pagan myths and Torah "prophecies". It’s a tale as old as civilisation, many faiths were made up before xtianity, many after, and many more will be made. Anthropology is what you need to learn, not scriptural debating tactics. Broaden your interests, your fixation with only one mythology worries me. If there was no "foundation" of xtianty, just a merging of prior myths, then, like abiogenesis or the big bang, no irrational (i.e. religious) explanation is needed, as there was no origin from "nothing". When you pick out all elements of the N.T. that are taken from other religions, you are left with nothing. That says it all. |
Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 30 2004, 08:23 AM | ||
I have noticed this idea recurring, and I find it to be a very strange one. If Christianity contains many elements that are also found in other religions - I fail to see why you would think that particular 'fact' to be pointing in a direction that would either 1) Debunk the idea of the existence of a God, or 2) Debunk Christianity's claim to be more directly "from God" than other religions. To my way of thinking, if there is indeed a spiritual dimension associated with what it means to be a human being - then, even if one particular religion is uniquely more in tune with the truest portrayal of that essence of reality - personally, I find it to be likely (and a point of confirmation) that there would be many "points of overlap" where various religious views intersect. -Dennis |
Posted by: spamandham Nov 30 2004, 09:55 AM | ||||
If you claim to have been given unique revelation directly from god, and it is later discovered other religions also held some of those revelations. Then such overlap would prove you were deceiving yourself. |
Posted by: Lanakila Nov 30 2004, 10:25 AM |
Not only that if your religion is just borrowed from pagan traditions and religions in rituals, doctrines, and history: then who is to say the pagan religions are wrong. If and when Christians study the history of the pagan religions--and the ancient Hebrews and compare them, you can't help but notice that not only is the God of the OT an evil warrior god that is comparable to all the pagan dieties around but that he is not one God at all, but that doctrine came much later. That many of the names for God in the OT are actual deities-separate from the Father God deity that most Christians accept. The temple rites are so similar and so pagan. The offering of Isaac by Abraham was a human sacrifice, much like the pagan cultures around participated in, and Jepthah also sacrificed his daughter to this pagan god. The Christ cult was just borrowed from Zoroastrianism while trying to tie ancient Judiaism in. Christianity has nothing over the pagan religions. It's claims about Jesus are nothing new, and can't be proven. The Bible is a religious text believed by religious people, but that doesn't prove its supernatural or that its by any means a historically accurate description of Jesus life if he even existed. |
Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 30 2004, 10:40 AM | ||
This sounds a little Hindu...ish. Except of course the part about "...one being more in tune with the truest portayal of that essence of reality" part. That's just a little arrogant of any religion to claim their way is more in tune with that 'essence'. |
Posted by: AUB Nov 30 2004, 12:23 PM | ||
Xtians have been saying that, even about greek philosophy and science, since day one. Arrogance covers the sense that their dogma is somehow better than the others, but the similarities are too great to be dismissed, while the differences among these religions are also too great for them all to be alternative of the same message or deity. First they denied there are similarities, then they focus entirely on them and ignore all the colossal doctrinal differences. The intellectual dishonesty of it's all amazes me. |
Posted by: Karl Dec 2 2004, 02:40 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SM & Dennis: I will respond to your points below:
I'm going to give you my take on religion and Spirituality again. I define Spirituality as an Internal Process: 1. Devotion to the Divine within 2. Dedication to Metaphysics 3. Respect for the Individual Rights of others. I define religion as an external framework, consisting of traditon, dogma, observances, ritual, etc.--whatever you want it to be. Can you see the difference? To the Pagan, the "coherant alternative framework" is basically Nature, and the unfolding evolvement that is observed. There are some here who say that the observed unfolding evolvement is unguided, and some, including myself, are of the opinion that it is Guided. The point of "overlap" in the Guided group, Dennis, is the commonality of acknowledgement of Universal HigherPower/Intelligence, and supposedly, Esotericism. Now let's get to the crux of the problem:
As myself, AUB, SH & others have pointed out, by what authority or stretch of the imagination can Christianity substantiate its claims of being "the only way", the "only true religion", the "only true revelation is the bible", "going to hell" if you don't convert, having the "one true" God, etc. in light of biblical errancy, self-contradiction and incongruity? NB hit the nail on the head with:
It is with this same arrogance that fundamentalist dogmatists will always say "we have the only 'true religion'", i.e. their focus is on the external elements I previously described, (e.g. subscribing to the "correct" dogma will "save" them) and not the Internal Process, which should be Common to all. Lana alluded to the utterly abhorrent violence, destruction and barbarity has been perpetrated throughout history in the name of primitive tribal biblegod, and by the religionists subscribing to those "scriptures". I'm an "atheist" when it comes to biblegod, Dennis. Classical Philosophy virtually came to an end with one of the most heinous and abominable murders committed in annals of humankind. Pulled from her chariot, Philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria, daughter of the Mathemeticain and Astronomer Theon, was stripped naked, stabbed and subsequently flayed (with sharpened oyster shells) in Alexandria in 415CE (in a "church" no less) by canonized "Saint" Cyril's man Peter the Reader and his band of crazed, lunatic monks, who do not even deserve to be called animals, let alone humans. Her remains were then burned by the same mob of Christian devils. But, this has been typical of Christian control-mongering, corruption and insanity since its inception, culminating in recent times with the Deanna Laney (of Tyler, Texas) tragedy (she stoned two of her own children to death with a rock because biblegod allegedly told her to do it), and the Mancini child-sacrifice horror, which fortunately did not come to fruition.
SM, Dennis...let's go back in time..... Some Words of Wisdom Hypatia left us:
EL was the chief deity of the Pagan Canaanite Pantheon. According to Armstrong, the Hebrews emerged from the Canaanite population, and they used the name EL as their name for God. EL is included in the OT Hebrew texts: "El Shaddai", "El Elyon", "Elohim", "ImManuEL" (Manu is a Hindu name for Deity), IsRaEL, etc. Yah was the Egyptian Moon God, and is also included in OT text. So we find that biblegod is a construct from varying sources. Additionally, the Goddess Asherah (consort of EL) was in use at least up to the 8th century BCE, but as the consort of YHWH:
Shaitan was the Sumerian God of light. (and was demonized into Satan) Lucifer is a character from Roman Mythology, where he was the son of the Dawn Goddess Aurora. So we see the same holds true for bibledevil. Christianity, as Lana said, gets some of its dogma from dualistic Zoroastrianism (hell, the final battle between good and evil, etc.) which were also adopted by Jewish apocolyptic thinkers, Christians and fundamentalist Islamists and found their way into the book of Revelation, etc. The Logos was in use in Pagan Greece, way before it was used in John 1:1 - The Thinker Heraclitus lived in the 6th century BCE, and was a native of Ephesus. Not a lot of his work has survived, but some has:
This passage is important, because it suggests the Internal Unity of all, which is in opposition to the externality of fundamentalist legalistic idiocy, which has done nothing but ruin humanity. And:
The Madonna and Child/Triad were on the walls of Egypt for millenia before they appeared as human literalizations in the NT gospels. In ancient times, Esotericism was encoded in Myth. Kuhn goes into this in his excellent book 'Who Is This King of Glory?' You can read this on-line at http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/kuhn.htm . Since my personal perspective is also Mystical Kemet, the reader should understand that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES is this an attempt to: preach at, proselytize, convert, dictate what position should be held or say how things should be viewed. Additionally, NO CLAIMS are made that what follows is "absolute truth", "inerrant" "revealed" text, "the only true word of god", "the only way" to be "saved", "the only true religion/dogma", "going to hell" if they don't believe it etc. My view of Kemet is somewhat more Universal and Eclectic as opposed to Orthodoxy. The Concept in Kemet is One Divine Power (Netjer) manifesting as many Essences or Divinities. (a form of Polytheism known as Monalatry) Physics has demonstrated the existence of the Primordial Field (the late Physicist Dr. Bruce DePalma goes into this in his paper 'On the Nature of the Primordial Field' at http://depalma.pair.com) DePalma's conjecture is that the Field is Intelligent (Energy or Force), and I agree with him. In electricity in Nature, we observe polarities: -(female),+(male). When we take a (+)male rod, and place it in a (-)female sheath, both of appropriate materials, we have something called a battery. When a bulb (load) is connected in the circuit, POWER is the child. The child brings forth LIGHT in the bulb. The triadic circuit is ONE. We see this happen in the physical sun. When enough simple hydrogen atoms (1 electron-, female and 1 proton+, male) come together, a sun is born. The sun "makes" all of the other elements. Again, power is the child and the child emits light. For lack of better terms, at the Higher Vibratory Level/Dimension of Spirit, I refer to the Intelligent Polarities of the Universe as "God" and "Goddess". I also see Them as Living Principles. At the Spirit Level, Esoterically, the Logos, or Upholding Power in the Universe, is also the Divine Child or Soul Spark, who comes in the hearts of men. At no point, did the ancients ever consider the Logos coming AS a man of flesh.
The Divine Child was said to be "crucified" on the cross of matter, and "rose from the dead" on the Transformation of the individual. There were numerous S(u/o)n God Saviours....Horus, Apollo, Buddha, Krishna, and many more. The Esotericism is the same. Unfortunately, exclusionistic, legalistic, fundamentalist religionist dogmas have no use for such things. It's bullshit like "don't do this" and "you must do that" and "you can't have that", and "you have to wear this"....the BS goes on and on... The Infinite Living Universe, having no beginning and no end, can not be compared to the finite, which has a beginning and an end. This Principle is also illustrated by the fact that the infinite circle can not be compared to the finite line. This is why the Pi calculation will never repeat, even though it has been carried to billions of decimal places. The Profoundness of Sacred Mathematics, the triadic prism which breaks white light into its colors, the Auric Life Energy display in a kirlian photograph, etc to me are indicative of Higher Organizing Power. DePalma writes of the Primordial Field:
and...
But we do have clues....Triadic Signatures are observed in Nature. The Absolote One is the Unmanifest Nothing. Together, They Manifest as TheAllThatIsConveyed. It is a Profound Mystery, but IMO One of Great Delight and Awe.
Another good book to read is 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' by Manly P.Hall, which goes into some detail about the various Mystery Schools. Fundies, in their abject ignorance and superstitious fear, have always bashed the Ankh as being "occult" (the word occult means "hidden") and "of the devil". Its Esoteric meaning is elucidated in the below basic illustration of my worldview. SM, hopefully I have at least somewhat "set the table", with more palatable Food than the dogmatic dogfood that you may have been used to in the past....do with it what you will. Best regards, K |
Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 2 2004, 05:35 AM | ||||
Then what happens to Christianity's claim to be unique? And why would the early church work so hard to surpress the other god/man stories? The reason you consider Christianity to be the best religion is because it is the one you were born into. If your family were Muslim, you would be posting on the Ex-Islam board. |
Posted by: spamandham Dec 2 2004, 02:44 PM | ||
There is a tremendous amount of junk science going on these days. In this case, we have more than just a claim at a perpetual motion machine, but we also have the inventor making excuses for not using it - "the government will confiscate it if I turn it on". I mean, come on. If you're that sure you've figured out how to make free energy but you're afraid the government will somehow magically know you've turned the machine on and come confiscate it, go to Antigua and do it. |
Posted by: JasonLong Dec 2 2004, 07:19 PM | ||
Don't expect an apologist to accept such a simple, undeniably true observation. If it were that easy to get people to think, Christianity would have died long ago. |
Posted by: Karl Dec 5 2004, 10:08 PM | ||||
You're right. And biblical self-contradictions aren't really self-contradictions, and just because there is no empirical evidence for something doesn't mean it didn't happen, and anything that absurd must be true, etc... Unfortunately, the fundie religionists are now getting help from the statists. I enjoyed your website, Jason. We'll just have to keep on exposing it for what it is. Best regards, K |