On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:57:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 9:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:55:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> True enough. But, the question is where is the tipping point. Where do
>>> people stop accepting, as a general whole, obvious lies, simply
>>> because a lot of people say they believe them?
>>
>> There's a bit of herd mentality that takes place when it comes to
>> believing crazy stuff.  I do wonder (as Bill Maher once postulated) if
>> people were raised believing in magic beans and beanstalks if they'd
>> defend it to the death when they grew up.
>>
>> Jim
> Been having a discussion over on a Youtube thread which answers that
> question. I doubt you would deny that a) the Greeks/Romans actually
> believed their gods where real, b) there isn't a whole lot, if anything,
> from the time, questioning their existence, c) there is a lot of "holy
> books", legends and stories, about them, d) all of this from the
> *actual* time they where supposed to be performing their miracles. Yet,
> the Christian on the thread insists that the Bible itself, a few known
> forgeries (some of which, like the one in Josephus' history is no longer
> even supported by all Biblical scholars as legit), and some vague
> references to people with similar names, nearly all of it written half a
> century later, constitutes "equal" evidence to that of any real
> historical figure, and is in fact "superior" to that of all the other
> prior mythologies, *and* most of those same historical figures. I mean,
> this guy wants to argue that we have more sound evidence for a real
> Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar.

That's where I have a big problem as well.  The Romans, Egyptians, Jews, 
etc were fairly well known for keeping very detailed records; while some 
records get destroyed over time, it's really odd that the only 
'historical' reference with some of these events in it is the Bible.

Also like Maher talked about in his film _Religulous_ (which I watched 
last night) with regards to the records kept about the 'virgin birth' - 
odd that none (IIRC) of the gospels talked about that; seems like 
something that would be very significant and would find its way into so-
called 'historical' accounts of the event.  But apparently not one of 
them mention it.

> I have no problem agreeing with Mill Maher on the subject.

> The fact that, as I also just pointed out, this "messiah" couldn't come
> up with anything to do that wasn't a direct replication of what ever
> false god and con artist has "supposedly" performed over the last 10,000
> years of recorded history, instead of like, regrowing a missing limb, or
> something, but only makes a unique case in as much as cramming as many
> of those prior miracles into one career as possible, probably isn't
> going to faze him a bit either. :(

Yep, that whole "this messiah story has been told over and over the same 
way over many millenia" was something I found quite interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message