Starlord??

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Why would he think that? He's smarter than the mythical character.
He's more moral than the mythical character. And he actually exists,
unlike the mythical character.

Exactly how do you determine how smart and how moral a non-existent
character is? Solving that problem ought to be similar to dividing
zero by zero...

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:55:12 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Why would he think that? He's smarter than the mythical character.
He's more moral than the mythical character. And he actually exists,
unlike the mythical character.

Exactly how do you determine how smart and how moral a non-existent
character is? Solving that problem ought to be similar to dividing
zero by zero...

More to the point, peterson is unable to prove that Jesus was a "mythical character." Nor can he prove that chrisbcritter is either moral or smart.

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:55:09 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Why would he think that? He's smarter than the mythical character.
He's more moral than the mythical character. And he actually exists,
unlike the mythical character.

Exactly how do you determine how smart and how moral a non-existent
character is? Solving that problem ought to be similar to dividing
zero by zero...

You can determine how smart and moral a mythical character is by
evaluating the words and actions ascribed to it in the mythos.

People make these judgments with fiction all the time.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:19:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:55:12 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Why would he think that? He's smarter than the mythical character.
He's more moral than the mythical character. And he actually exists,
unlike the mythical character.

Exactly how do you determine how smart and how moral a non-existent
character is? Solving that problem ought to be similar to dividing
zero by zero...

More to the point, peterson is unable to prove that Jesus was a "mythical character." Nor can he prove that chrisbcritter is either moral or smart.

I don't feel any need to prove he was mythical (although that is a
matter of fact, regardless of whether the myth is partly derived from
a historical person).

The interesting question is whether there was a historical Jesus, and
the burden of proof there lies on those making that assertions. Most
certainly, no proof has been provided, and what evidence has been
offered is quite weak.

Empirical drones are only imitating how the old communists generally approached religion through denominational structures that they saw as competing with empirical convictions, some of it would be quite amusing if it were not so prevalent among empiricists here -

" You must work until "religion" is synonymous with "insanity."" You must work until the officials of city, county and state governments will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies." Commie manifesto

http://www.whale.to/b/soviet.htm#CHAPTER_XIV__


What is not so funny is that the education system is used as a conduit for what are effectively these political and social ideologies once promoted with the anti-competitive and anti-creative commie ideologies and especially the misuse of astronomy and terrestrial sciences for little more than voodoo and self-serving lifestyles.

The creative and productive individual is born into an atmosphere where balances and conflict exist whereas communist/ empiricist ideologies, at least where astronomy is concerned, don't rise much above propaganda.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:13:29 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:19:55 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:55:12 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Why would he think that? He's smarter than the mythical character.
He's more moral than the mythical character. And he actually exists,
unlike the mythical character.

Exactly how do you determine how smart and how moral a non-existent
character is? Solving that problem ought to be similar to dividing
zero by zero...

More to the point, peterson is unable to prove that Jesus was a "mythical character." Nor can he prove that chrisbcritter is either moral or smart.

I don't feel any need to prove he was mythical

It's not a matter of what you WANT to prove, it's that you now MUST prove him to be a mythical character, else your credibility drops below zero.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:11:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

You can determine how smart and moral a mythical character is by
evaluating the words and actions ascribed to it in the mythos.

People make these judgments with fiction all the time.

As usual, peterson is having trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:08:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:13:29 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:19:55 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:55:12 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Why would he think that? He's smarter than the mythical character.
He's more moral than the mythical character. And he actually exists,
unlike the mythical character.

Exactly how do you determine how smart and how moral a non-existent
character is? Solving that problem ought to be similar to dividing
zero by zero...

More to the point, peterson is unable to prove that Jesus was a "mythical character." Nor can he prove that chrisbcritter is either moral or smart.

I don't feel any need to prove he was mythical

It's not a matter of what you WANT to prove, it's that you now MUST prove him to be a mythical character, else your credibility drops below zero.

He is mythical. Good luck finding a scholar who disagrees. The
question that is discussed is the degree to which he was historical.
And the evidence there is poor.

To the extent somebody wants to claim he was a real person, the burden
is on them to provide evidence.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:07:56 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:08:41 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:13:29 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:19:55 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 3:55:12 AM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Why would he think that? He's smarter than the mythical character.
He's more moral than the mythical character. And he actually exists,
unlike the mythical character.

Exactly how do you determine how smart and how moral a non-existent
character is? Solving that problem ought to be similar to dividing
zero by zero...

More to the point, peterson is unable to prove that Jesus was a "mythical character." Nor can he prove that chrisbcritter is either moral or smart.

I don't feel any need to prove he was mythical

It's not a matter of what you WANT to prove, it's that you now MUST prove him to be a mythical character, else your credibility drops below zero.

He is mythical. Good luck finding a scholar who disagrees.

What would be their proof? (Their -opinions- are irrelevant.)

To the extent somebody wants to claim he was a real person, the burden
is on them to provide evidence.

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:59:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

He is mythical. Good luck finding a scholar who disagrees.

What would be their proof? (Their -opinions- are irrelevant.)

He's mythical by the definition of "mythical". That's not something
you "prove". But you've demonstrated many times that you are clueless
about how scholarly research operates.

To the extent somebody wants to claim he was a real person, the burden
is on them to provide evidence.

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

You don't understand anything about logic, either. If you assert
something is real, you need to offer evidence. Not if you assert
something doesn't exist.