In reply to Tunisan (Paul)....
Boy oh boy...if your willing to reduce the assertation of the possability that Jesus may have been an actual human being to being in the same realm as asserting that the possability that pygmies used industrial technology, then I can't help you.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one!
Errrrr... sorry, Paul, but I think you took what I actually said a bit out of context.
I believe the "historical Jesus" and "industrial Pygmy" are similar
in the sense that they are phenomena in which we have little-to-no material evidence for their validity, and that they are both situations in which we
should have solid material evidence of some kind. But, the sad truth is, we do not.
I do not believe the two phenomena have equal probability or likelihood, but that they are similar in that particular sense.
I said "theorize" which means "to propose a theory."
Which is why I cautioned your use of the word "theory", as you are clearly misusing the word. You can't "propose a theory" --- a theory is a hypothesis that becomes consistently "proven" (so to speak) over large stretches of time (such as the Cell Theory or Theory of Evolution). Proposing something implies a novelty, a new invention --- not a time-tested concept.
Not always. There is not always material evidence available to us. In fact, in all ancient history, there is often very little.
But, hey....I must be the conspiricy nutso....or perhaps just a little confused...
No, just a little confused.
Next time, I suggest reading my post in more detail --- else you may have noticed my qualifier of "certain things". As in, "not all" things. You're basically just repeating what I said.
And, in regards to the period in question (1st to 2nd centuries CE), this was an abundantly literate period in human history (even though many documents were lost due to the Christian attacks on the Library of Alexandria).
Never said that. I am saying that the less material evidence you have, the more that is open to interpretation.
Ooop.... be careful with "universals" like that. They aren't always true (ironic, I know).
Take, for example, Aristotlean rules of logic --- there is absolutey no
material evidence, so to speak, to support these principles. Yet, we have little doubt of their viability. Likewise, even when we have impressive amounts of material evidence itself --- there can still be ample room for debate and speculation. This is done quite often in statistics, in which the same figures are used to justify completely contrary points-of-view.
In the case of Jesus, or any ancient history, there is a lot that is open to interpretation.
True as that may be, this still does not relegate the situation to a historical relativism. This is why it is so important, as I stressed before, to bring the proper evidence to the table (whether material, logical, or translogical). Retreating into realms of "true for me", while valid in some respects, is ultimately a dead-end.
And for some, their Ego refuses to allow them to accept anything that doesn't fit their interpretation as "evidence."
Undoubtedly.
I understand that. It's open to criticism, but my beliefs are on the same "playing field" as yours, or anyone elses.
In a sense, yes.
This is because there is not enough material evidence to prove or disprove the Christian premise, or to prove or disprove another premise over the Christian one. Criticize all you like (as you certianly do), but that doesn't change this "fact."
That isn't a "fact", its a belief you wish to cling to without providing any real logic or evidence in its defense. One, which I might add, is inherently contradictory and hypocritical --- namely, because it claims for itself (ultimate truth or "facthood") what it denies to all others ("no other view if 'factual' but this one").
The above statement are one of the major problems in discussions like these. You claim that there is not enough evidence to "prove or disprove" either position, but then emphatically refuse to provide any evidence or logic in support of this thesis. The supposed truth of the statement is portrayed in a "matter-of-fact" and "undebatable" fashion --- you claim it is a "fact", but give absolutely no reason for why we should believe this is so.
You're just using epistemological relativism for your own benefit (as you clearly don't
really believe all views are equal, as evidenced by your support of Catholicism), as a tool. And, what's worse, you're not even providing any logic or evidence to support relativism --- just "this is the way it is 'cuz I say so" rhetoric.
I can accept that the decision as to whether either position is "provable" or not is ultimately up to individual choice (as you can only "see" what your mind is capable of taking in). I cannot accept the notion that either position is ultimately "unprovable" simply because one claims this is so.
I am well versed in Logic. Anyone who is knows that it only works if the variables are agreed upon. Not all premises are provable or disprovable to be "true" by Logic because of lack of material evidence, so we have to agree or accept the variables before moving forward with a proof. You and I have been down this road before, and it boils down to the fact that we don't accept each others variables.
I can use logic to prove the existance of God. But that doesn't mean that you'll agree that my premises or my variables are true, or that I'll be able to prove them as such.
Ummm.... sorry, but no.
Whether something is "logical" and whether something is "true" are two completely different animals. I refer you to the Two Situations involving Bob that I posited in an earlier post --- only one was logical, but both were untrue. It is the truthfulness of the "variables" that are in dispute here, not the logic. Once again, a proof is logical
if and only if its premises are logical --- this has nothing to do with empirical "truth".
As for arguing for God's existence --- sorry, you can't use logic to do that. You can maybe argue that your belief in God is logical, but not that its based on empirical "truth".
I am really discussing the use of logic to prove/disprove religion, or ancient history, rather then "Pure Logic."
Technically, all logic can
really do is prove whether a belief (whether religious or historical) is logical. Not its truthfulness.
You have to assume God exists. If you assume this, then it is logical to assume that the "story" behind God, whatever it is, is a true story.
Nope. There is absolutely no logic at all behind such a conception. Let's use another example to demonstrate this:
1) George Washington really existed. 2) We have a book or "story" that describes the life of George Washington. 3) Since George Washington really existed, this book or "story" must be true.
You're basically using the same logic as above --- the only problem being there can be (and have been) plenty of fictional books written about the real-life George Washington. The belief has no logical basis whatsoever.
The belief that there is a "God" and the belief that the "story" attributed to Him is basically true are two completely different animals, and have no logical connection whatsoever (with the exception that if there is no God, this automatically invalidates the truth of the "story" --- but, again, we are discussing logic here and not "truth").
Then, you have to assume that the Catholic faith (in my assumption) is the closest man-made interpretation of "the true story." Then, you have to assume that other religions are not "all wrong," but may have parts that coincide with Catholicism. If you find this assumption to be true, then it is easy to come to the conclusion that the "truth" in all other faiths support the truths in Catholicism, which reflects the truth in the God story.
Y'know ---- there's a basic principle in both science and philosophy: the simpler a thesis is (that, is the fewer premises required for its truthfulness), the more likely it is true. A dozen assumptions and premises doesn't lend well to this principle (this is one of the principal reasons Evolutionism is looked with favor over traditional Creationism).
It really isn't that hard to understand. Sure, there are a lot of assumptions, and we can pick a part each assumption. All that will do is create more assumptions that need to be picked apart, and so on and so forth; and all along the way we'll find that you can't prove many assumptions to be "true" at all when talking about subjects that lack material evidence. So it will just go around in a circle forever, as we try to agree on the variables.
Uhhh... sorry, not quite.
You do realize that in your defense of "not picking apart assumptions", you just made one more assumption (that picking apart assumptions will necessarily create more assumptions), no?? A performative contradiction.
This is just one more of your "it is so 'cuz I say so", "matter-of-fact" statements. You claim picking apart assumptions will create more assumptions, but don't provide any logic or evidence for why this is so. Thus, the statement is just
one more assumption in your already-long list.
Speaking from personal experience myself, I have found that debunking the assumptions of others does not "create" more assumptions that need to be "picked apart". This implies that questioning someone's beliefs/assumptions necessarily means that the questioner's beliefs/assumptions should now be questioned --- which is just bad debating. The proper defense of one's beliefs is to
defend one's beliefs --- not attack the beliefs of the questioner.
Now, you can call Mythical Prefigurement idea "elitist" and "racist" all you want, but that is only your opinion, which doesn't make it so.
Perhaps not. But, I've got logical reasoning for my claims --- which is more than I can say for any defense of Mythical Prefigurement provided thus far. You haven't actually attempted to
defend Mythical Prefigurement with either material evidence or logical reasoning, but have instead tried to "pick apart" any supposed assumptions you believe I hold. Now, I see where you came to the conclusion above...
Of course, this is not the way it has to be. The proper response in a discussion is not to attack the questioner's assumptions, but to defend one's own with logic and/or material evidence. This has yet to be done.
The theory is a hell of a lot more inclusive then "I believe that my way is right and everyone else is wrong" for one.
Once again, Mythical Prefigurement is not a theory. If anything, its simply a thesis.
Also, I fail to see the difference between the two ideas. Mythical Prefigurement explicitly states that, not only are the myths of all other religions incorrect while my own are correct, but that all those myths exist for the
sole purpose of proving the validity of my myths. I would like an explanation of how this is not "everyone else is wrong but me".
For two, your forgetting the Christian premise that has to go along with the ideal, which makes it very non-elitist.
Nope, sorry. Your modern understanding of Christianity is a bit of a novelty --- as, even today, orthodox Christian belief still holds that all the "unsaved" (i.e., those that disagree with us) will go to Hell (whether this is perceived as a place or a "state of being"). That's pure elitism.
Don't mistake your personal take on Christian beliefs as being indicative of Christianity as a whole.
That ideal is that "truth" doesn't make you a better person, and it definatily ain't going to get you to heaven. In our belief, Satan knows what is "true" more then we do, yet he knowingly spreads lies. Someone could know all the truth in the world, but that doesn't mean that they are going to live a good life over an evil one. So, I may believe that my religion is the most correct and complete, but that doesn't mean I am going to get to heaven over, say, a Jewish or Buddhist person. How can I determine who God loves and who choses to go to heaven? You see, when you add the Christian premise to the Mythical Prefigurement idea, it no longer becomes a "racist, elitist" idea. If you add the Christian ideal, you really can't say that you are better then someone else.
Ummm.... that's nice and all, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
I wasn't talking about whether Christianity says whether you go to Heaven or not if you know the "truth". Nor, was I talking about whether Christians are the only ones believed to go to Heaven. This doesn't factor into the perceived elitism of Mythical Prefigurement whatsoever, as nowhere was "Heaven" ever mentioned in my criticism.
The elitism has to do with the inherently ethnocentric ideas of Mythical Prefigurement --- that the stories of all other religions and cultures exist to "prove" ours right. It doesn't matter what you believe happens to the adherents of those other religions/cultures, the fact remains that Mythical Prefigurement is an inherently arrogant and ethnocentric stance. You may believe EVERYBODY goes to Heaven when they die ('cuz God really is such a nice Guy and all), and still believe Mythical Prefigurement is true --- meaning, you still believe all other myths are inherently false, and were created for the purpose of "proving" your own correct.
That doesn't change a thing. Mythical Prefigurement is still ethnocentrism incarnate --- regardless of any beliefs indirectly associated with it (especially since, last time I checked, Mythical Prefigurement doesn't say everyone that believes in those "other myths" goes to Paradise when they die).
The simple fact remains is that there is no reason to believe those "other myths" prefigure, or point to, the story of Jesus Christ outside of cultural prejudice. I point you to the previous hypothetical example in which a Manicheist could make similar claims in Jesus' perceived relationship to Manes (and the Dionysian to the Osirian). It all boils down to cultural bias and prejudice.
No, its hypocrisy. You deny to others what you take for yourself, a claim for "ultimate" or "observable" truth.
So, it isn't as poorly thought out as you think. All beliefs are percieved to be true from the eyes of the individual, but may or may not be true in the eyes of God (again, going with the assumption that there is a God).
So the logic isn't what you say, really. It is more like "all beliefs are percieved to be true to the individual, but may or may not be true to "God." Since we do not know exactly what is true to "God," then all our beliefs have equal value until proven otherwise.
Actually, yeah. It is. Its a very twisted and convoluted take on relativism. But, its relativism nonetheless.
You claim, at root, "all claims are basically equal, all are perceived to be true for the individual" --- with the backdrop of God's unknowable "ultimate truth" tossed in for flavor. The problem with such a position is that it claims for itself what it denies to all others: a performative contradiction.
What it really says is: "No claim is any more 'truthful' or 'correct' than another --- except for the one that claims this is so." Because, despite your
claims for espistemological egalitarianism, you are still making "this is right and this is wrong" truth-statements --- that all those that say all views are basically equal are "right" (including you), and all those that say otherwise are "wrong".
Postmodernist philosophers fall into this trap all the time.
If you look at this arguement, it is not narcissistic, elitist, or racist, or ethnocentric, or whatever clever names that you would like to attribute to my beliefs. It is actually far from elitist in that I give value to everyones beliefs. All beliefs are open to criticism, but this puts them all on the same "playing field".
Sure, you give value to everyone's beliefs. You just give your position the most value. This puts everyone on the same "playing field", with a subtle attempt to make yourself the umpire.
Because, remember, "all views have the same value --- except for the one that says this is so". Because, obviously, you feel the "same value" position has more truth or value than the "different value" position. Circular, circular, circular.
And, if you look at the arguement also, I am not saying that "I am right and everyone else is wrong." I am just saying "I believe that I am right." Is this different then what, say, YOU are saying? How is that "elitist"?
Ummm.... because I don't pretend to be elitist while denying to others what I take for myself.
You can see what you want to see, but I'll tell you that there are no "veiled attempts" anywhere.
Well, not intentionally anyway. I wouldn't make such claims about the postmodernists that fall prey to this kind of thinking, either --- but, it doesn't change the basic nature and substance of their arguments.
It would seem that you have a problem with recognizing that because of the lack of material proof to support really any belief regarding "Jesus," other peoples "evidence" is just as valid as yours. You seem to want to believe that your conjecture is based off evidence that is in some way more valid then others.
Umm..... well, yeah. Sorta.
I think one of the problems with your criticism of me, Paul, is that the "lack of historical sources" is only
one facet of my position. I have quite a bit of material evidence on my side (all of which, of course, is open to debate): the treatment of Jesus in "Paul's" authentic letters, the "silence" of all known early Christian fathers regarding Jesus' autobiographical details, the parallels with Pagan Osiris-Dionysus myths, the general Gnostic/Mystery approach to god-men and Christianity's perceived relationship with such approaches, the pre-eminence of Docetism througout early Christianity, etc. etc.
I happen to believe there is
more and
better evidence in support of my position than the historicist's. If that makes me "arrogant", well, then I guess I'm arrogant.
For some reason, it appears that you resist having a dialog on equal grounds, and that you want to put yourself above everyone else before the conversations even starts. This is just the appearance; tell me if I am wrong.
Once again, if YOU want people to take YOUR arguement seriously, then start respecting other peoples opinions, and be willing to argue from equal ground. If you are respecting others opinions and willing to argue from equal ground, then it would help if it seemed more that way.
I do argue from equal ground, in the sense that I think everyone has their own unique perspective, reasoning, and "evidence" to bring to the table. That does
not mean I just blindly accept they have as much evidence as me, but that they have their own take on things which deserve attention.
Now, in the "historical Jesus" thread, there is plenty of "evidence" and logic there to support the Christian idea that Jesus was a real person; although some points are presented better then others. You may choose not to agree with the variables for the logic, and you may choose to try to refute the evidence, but don't say that there is "no evidence" or "no logic" while assessing that your evidence and logic is somehow superior. Just because you assess something and filabuster it to death, that doesn't make it true.
I'm afraid, Paul, that this all boils down to a matter of divergent definitions.
You are using "evidence" and "logic" in a way that they are not used in the formal disciplines that make use of them (science and philosophy), similar to your use of the word "theory". I
do think people have their reasons and bases for believing what they believe --- that doesn't make any of this "evidence" or "logic" in the formal sense of the words.
I suppose the problem is I'm using the formal, professional definitions of these concepts --- whereas you seem to be using the more informal, everyday usages. Within those terms, however, (the informal usages) I would agree with your generalizations.
P.S. It's funny that you brought up Robert. Filibustering someones arguement doesn't constitute "tearing their stuff apart" or winning the arguement.
Ok, now that stab was just plain silly.
These are complex definitions, with complex arguments. Your notion that because I am giving more than a few words to each issue raised, I am necessarily "fillibustering" is completely illogical and unfounded. The topic on the nature of logic alone is a very lengthy topic (which by no means have I done justice to here).
I should also mention, Paul, that you were the first among us to toss out a "giant" post.
Laterz.
