Secular Scientists Are Cowardly Sniveling Louts

Rich.Andrews wrote:


That certainly is one viewpoint. There is large amount of evidence that
suggests that JC existed. Of course this could be the subject of a
debate, but it would be rather pointless.

Actually there is very little such historical evidence. Look in two
places. The Christian Gospels and the writing of Josephus which were
probably redacted by Christial partisans. Other than that, nothing.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:cHspc.53947$536.9227220@attbi_s03...
Rich.Andrews wrote:


That certainly is one viewpoint. There is large amount of evidence that
suggests that JC existed. Of course this could be the subject of a
debate, but it would be rather pointless.

Actually there is very little such historical evidence. Look in two
places. The Christian Gospels and the writing of Josephus which were
probably redacted by Christial partisans. Other than that, nothing.

Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. II, The New
Testament, actually deals with the idea that Jesus might be a
fictional character. He dismisses the theory based on his study of the
Gospel writings, taking into account contradictions that show up in
Biblical writing that [are] consider totally fictional (Johah and the
"Great Fish" for one) and observes that clear, obvious contradictions
of that nature don't appear in the Gospels. He determines that Jesus
did actually exist, although he maintains that the miracles and
visions are exagerations generated by later followers.

Now if the 'penultimate agnostic' can acknowledge the existence of
Jesus Christ, where's the question?

(lensman1955) wrote in message . com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:cHspc.53947$536.9227220@attbi_s03...
Rich.Andrews wrote:


That certainly is one viewpoint. There is large amount of evidence that
suggests that JC existed. Of course this could be the subject of a
debate, but it would be rather pointless.

Actually there is very little such historical evidence. Look in two
places. The Christian Gospels and the writing of Josephus which were
probably redacted by Christial partisans. Other than that, nothing.

Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. II, The New
Testament, actually deals with the idea that Jesus might be a
fictional character. He dismisses the theory based on his study of the
Gospel writings, taking into account contradictions that show up in
Biblical writing that [are] consider totally fictional (Johah and the
"Great Fish" for one) and observes that clear, obvious contradictions
of that nature don't appear in the Gospels. He determines that Jesus
did actually exist, although he maintains that the miracles and
visions are exagerations generated by later followers.

Now if the 'penultimate agnostic' can acknowledge the existence of
Jesus Christ, where's the question?

No question at all -- if your judgment rests on the "scholarship" of
science-fiction writing amateurs. If you look at the evidence and
judge for yourself, Jesus non-existence is a reasonable question. See
for example the several books by professor GA Wells.

It is hard to form an opinion, since the believers "answer" to Wells
careful analyses is either ad hominem attack or to simply to ignore it
-- you never get a reasoned refutation of his ideas.


Dirk Hartog

---------------------
I don't care what you believe.
I care what the evidence is.
I care about the reasoning you use to justify your beliefs.

It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours
is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally
acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies
that apply only to one's own story.
[John Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29]

On 25 May 2004 06:44:37 -0700, (Dirk Hartog)
wrote:

(lensman1955) wrote in message . com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:cHspc.53947$536.9227220@attbi_s03...
Rich.Andrews wrote:


That certainly is one viewpoint. There is large amount of evidence that
suggests that JC existed. Of course this could be the subject of a
debate, but it would be rather pointless.

Actually there is very little such historical evidence. Look in two
places. The Christian Gospels and the writing of Josephus which were
probably redacted by Christial partisans. Other than that, nothing.

Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. II, The New
Testament, actually deals with the idea that Jesus might be a
fictional character. He dismisses the theory based on his study of the
Gospel writings, taking into account contradictions that show up in
Biblical writing that [are] consider totally fictional (Johah and the
"Great Fish" for one) and observes that clear, obvious contradictions
of that nature don't appear in the Gospels. He determines that Jesus
did actually exist, although he maintains that the miracles and
visions are exagerations generated by later followers.

Now if the 'penultimate agnostic' can acknowledge the existence of
Jesus Christ, where's the question?

No question at all -- if your judgment rests on the "scholarship" of
science-fiction writing amateurs.

The man was more scholarly than you apparently know. Dr Asimov
held a PH.D in Chemistry and was a professor at the Boston University
School of Medicine. Of the 466 books the man wrote in his lifetime
more than half were non-fiction. Not as easy to dismiss his
scholarship when you know who he was, is it?








--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Stars are visible in the night sky because of the
laser of light they emit."
- Nancy Lieder shares an aspect of
"advanced" Zeta science

"DrPostman" wrote in message
...

On 25 May 2004 06:44:37 -0700, (Dirk Hartog)

wrote:



(lensman1955) wrote in message
. com...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:cHspc.53947$536.9227220@attbi_s03...

Rich.Andrews wrote:





That certainly is one viewpoint. There is large amount of
evidence that

suggests that JC existed. Of course this could be the subject of
a

debate, but it would be rather pointless.



Actually there is very little such historical evidence. Look in two

places. The Christian Gospels and the writing of Josephus which were

probably redacted by Christial partisans. Other than that, nothing.



Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. II, The New

Testament, actually deals with the idea that Jesus might be a

fictional character. He dismisses the theory based on his study of the

Gospel writings, taking into account contradictions that show up in

Biblical writing that [are] consider totally fictional (Johah and the

"Great Fish" for one) and observes that clear, obvious contradictions

of that nature don't appear in the Gospels. He determines that Jesus

did actually exist, although he maintains that the miracles and

visions are exagerations generated by later followers.



Now if the 'penultimate agnostic' can acknowledge the existence of

Jesus Christ, where's the question?



No question at all -- if your judgment rests on the "scholarship" of

science-fiction writing amateurs.



The man was more scholarly than you apparently know. Dr Asimov

held a PH.D in Chemistry and was a professor at the Boston University

School of Medicine. Of the 466 books the man wrote in his lifetime

more than half were non-fiction. Not as easy to dismiss his

scholarship when you know who he was, is it?





If you yourself form opinions based not on the facts but on the say so of
some alleged authority, then hey, knock yourself out. I think it's a bad
way to do things, especially in this subject, where the "authorities" are
all over the map. You might want to read Professor Dr. Jonathan Z. Smith's
book Drudgery Divine and educate yourself on that point. (Dr. Smith is a
scholar of the history of religion, and of the scholarship of the history of
religion -- imagine, citing someone in the field!)



Further, it's especially silly to cite the "authority" a chemist and med
school professor when the subject is the history of ancient religion. It's
pretty clear he spent a lot of time NOT studying the issue in question.



Further, Azimonv's dismissal -- if the account here is accurate -- is based
on a superficial understanding of the issues. Dismissing the theory "based
on his study of the Gospel writings" is about as clueless as one can get.
You might want to read GA Wells books to educate yourself on the point.



Dirk Hartog



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

I don't care what you believe.

I care what the evidence is.

I care about the reasoning you use to justify your beliefs.



It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours is
myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally acceptable
to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies that apply only to
one's own story.

[John Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29]

(Dirk Hartog) wrote in message . com...
(lensman1955) wrote in message . com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:cHspc.53947$536.9227220@attbi_s03...
Rich.Andrews wrote:


That certainly is one viewpoint. There is large amount of evidence that
suggests that JC existed. Of course this could be the subject of a
debate, but it would be rather pointless.

Actually there is very little such historical evidence. Look in two
places. The Christian Gospels and the writing of Josephus which were
probably redacted by Christial partisans. Other than that, nothing.

Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. II, The New
Testament, actually deals with the idea that Jesus might be a
fictional character. He dismisses the theory based on his study of the
Gospel writings, taking into account contradictions that show up in
Biblical writing that [are] consider totally fictional (Johah and the
"Great Fish" for one) and observes that clear, obvious contradictions
of that nature don't appear in the Gospels. He determines that Jesus
did actually exist, although he maintains that the miracles and
visions are exagerations generated by later followers.

Now if the 'penultimate agnostic' can acknowledge the existence of
Jesus Christ, where's the question?

No question at all -- if your judgment rests on the "scholarship" of
science-fiction writing amateurs. If you look at the evidence and
judge for yourself, Jesus non-existence is a reasonable question. See
for example the several books by professor GA Wells.

It is hard to form an opinion, since the believers "answer" to Wells
careful analyses is either ad hominem attack or to simply to ignore it
-- you never get a reasoned refutation of his ideas.

Asimov was one of the best authors of our time with over 200 books to
his credit. Toward the end of his career, most of these books were of
research on many different fields. To consider him an "amateur" is
simply displaying your own ignorance.

"lensman1955" wrote in message
m...
(Dirk Hartog) wrote in message
. com...
(lensman1955) wrote in message
. com...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:cHspc.53947$536.9227220@attbi_s03...
Rich.Andrews wrote:


That certainly is one viewpoint. There is large amount of
evidence that
suggests that JC existed. Of course this could be the subject of
a
debate, but it would be rather pointless.

Actually there is very little such historical evidence. Look in two
places. The Christian Gospels and the writing of Josephus which were
probably redacted by Christial partisans. Other than that, nothing.

Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. II, The New
Testament, actually deals with the idea that Jesus might be a
fictional character. He dismisses the theory based on his study of the
Gospel writings, taking into account contradictions that show up in
Biblical writing that [are] consider totally fictional (Johah and the
"Great Fish" for one) and observes that clear, obvious contradictions
of that nature don't appear in the Gospels. He determines that Jesus
did actually exist, although he maintains that the miracles and
visions are exagerations generated by later followers.

Now if the 'penultimate agnostic' can acknowledge the existence of
Jesus Christ, where's the question?

No question at all -- if your judgment rests on the "scholarship" of
science-fiction writing amateurs. If you look at the evidence and
judge for yourself, Jesus non-existence is a reasonable question. See
for example the several books by professor GA Wells.

It is hard to form an opinion, since the believers "answer" to Wells
careful analyses is either ad hominem attack or to simply to ignore it
-- you never get a reasoned refutation of his ideas.

Asimov was one of the best authors of our time with over 200 books to
his credit. Toward the end of his career, most of these books were of
research on many different fields. To consider him an "amateur" is
simply displaying your own ignorance.

If you yourself form opinions based not on the facts but on the say so of
some alleged authority, then hey, knock yourself out. I think it's a bad
way to do things, especially in this subject, where the "authorities" are
all over the map. You might want to read Professor Dr. Jonathan Z. Smith's
book Drudgery Divine and educate yourself on that point. (Dr. Smith is a
scholar of the history of religion, and of the scholarship of the history of
religion -- imagine, citing someone in the field!)

Further, it's especially silly to cite the "authority" a chemist and med
school professor when the subject is the history of ancient religion. It's
pretty clear he spent a lot of time NOT studying the issue in question.


Yup, lots of books in lots of fields. Wide and shallow. This isn't a field
where shallow works. Azimonv's dismissal -- if the account here is
accurate -- is based on a superficial understanding of the issues.
Dismissing the theory "based on his study of the Gospel writings" is about
as clueless as one can get. You might want to read GA Wells books to educate
yourself on the point.

Dirk Hartog
---------------------
I don't care what you believe.
I care what the evidence is.
I care about the reasoning you use to justify your beliefs.

It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours is
myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally acceptable
to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies that apply only to
one's own story.
[John Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29]

lensman1955 wrote:
Asimov was one of the best authors of our time with over 200 books to
his credit. Toward the end of his career, most of these books were of
research on many different fields. To consider him an "amateur" is
simply displaying your own ignorance.

About 500 books, actually. (You sound like you're a Doc Smith fan.)

However, his research as such was limited to early work in chemistry,
and not scientific exposition for the lay public. He considered himself
an explainer, not a researcher. I have a bunch of his science books
and they are notable for their breadth, not their depth.

I'm among the biggest fans of Asimov's science writing, but he didn't
work with primary sources. His great strength was his ability to make
science and other fields (including religion) accessible, but I wouldn't
consider him an authority on religion.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:12:17 GMT, "Dirk Hartog"
wrote:


The man was more scholarly than you apparently know. Dr Asimov

held a PH.D in Chemistry and was a professor at the Boston University

School of Medicine. Of the 466 books the man wrote in his lifetime

more than half were non-fiction. Not as easy to dismiss his

scholarship when you know who he was, is it?





If you yourself form opinions based not on the facts but on the say so of
some alleged authority, then hey, knock yourself out. I think it's a bad
way to do things, especially in this subject, where the "authorities" are
all over the map. You might want to read Professor Dr. Jonathan Z. Smith's
book Drudgery Divine and educate yourself on that point. (Dr. Smith is a
scholar of the history of religion, and of the scholarship of the history of
religion -- imagine, citing someone in the field!)


I was merely correcting your attempt to call Asimov a science fiction
amateur and unscholarly.


Further, it's especially silly to cite the "authority" a chemist and med
school professor when the subject is the history of ancient religion. It's
pretty clear he spent a lot of time NOT studying the issue in question.

You clearly have no knowledge of the work the man did in many
other areas or his qualifications.


Further, Azimonv's dismissal -- if the account here is accurate -- is based
on a superficial understanding of the issues. Dismissing the theory "based
on his study of the Gospel writings" is about as clueless as one can get.
You might want to read GA Wells books to educate yourself on the point.

Rather hypocritical of you to suggest that, when you haven't read
Asimov.





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Stars are visible in the night sky because of the
laser of light they emit."
- Nancy Lieder shares an aspect of
"advanced" Zeta science

"DrPostman" wrote in mmessage
...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:12:17 GMT, "Dirk Hartog"
wrote:


The man was more scholarly than you apparently know. Dr Asimov

held a PH.D in Chemistry and was a professor at the Boston University

School of Medicine. Of the 466 books the man wrote in his lifetime

more than half were non-fiction. Not as easy to dismiss his

scholarship when you know who he was, is it?

If you yourself form opinions based not on the facts but on the say so of
some alleged authority, then hey, knock yourself out. I think it's a bad
way to do things, especially in this subject, where the "authorities" are
all over the map. You might want to read Professor Dr. Jonathan Z.
Smith's
book Drudgery Divine and educate yourself on that point. (Dr. Smith is a
scholar of the history of religion, and of the scholarship of the history
of
religion -- imagine, citing someone in the field!)


I was merely correcting your attempt to call Asimov a science fiction
amateur and unscholarly.

Asimov was an amateur _scholar of religion_.


Further, it's especially silly to cite the "authority" a chemist and med
school professor when the subject is the history of ancient religion.
It's
pretty clear he spent a lot of time NOT studying the issue in question.

You clearly have no knowledge of the work the man did in many
other areas or his qualifications.

#1 His scholarship in other areas is irrelevant to his authority as a
"scholar" of the Jesus myth. His scholarship in other areas is irrelevant
to his authority as to the truth of the Jesus myth.

#2 You have no ****ing idea what I know or don't know about Asimov.

#3 If he imagined that he could accept the Jesus myth based on based on "his
study of the Gospel writings" I know that in this area he has the
qualifications of a clueless amateur.


Further, Asimov's dismissal -- if the account here is accurate -- is
based
on a superficial understanding of the issues. Dismissing the theory
"based
on his study of the Gospel writings" is about as clueless as one can get.
You might want to read GA Wells books to educate yourself on the point.

Rather hypocritical of you to suggest that, when you haven't read
Asimov.

And this fantasy assertion of yours is relevant to the truth of the Jesus
myth exactly how?

DH