mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/14/85)
In article <465@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >The disciples were probably fully aware of JC's fraudulence. They worked >together as a religious cabal, with JC as leader and the apostles as >shills. In the prophet biz, you have to talk up your main man. >Well of course. If they said gawd ruled in some material way we >could see, their audiences would have laughed and said "No, the Romans do." >This is an example of the god of the cracks school of religion. >God's not nearly as busy as he used to be now that we have materialistic >explanations for winds and planetary movements and such. Obviously Mike has some source of historical information we are not party to. I mean, it's just like you read in the _Inquirer_ (NOT Skeptical, the other one). "Jesus: the true story!" "Brain-washed by an Apostle!" "The Gospels were Written By Francis Bacon!" :-) At this late date in history, such things represent pure speculation, all the more so considering Mike is second-guessing text written 18 centuries ago, presumably from earlier versions. It also very interesting that he claims to know why God seems to have chosen to do many fewer miracles these days. Is Satan writing exposes on the Godhead? ("Menage-a-trois on the White Throne!" THe mind boggles at the possibilities! :-)) >Consider the parable of the bind men and the elephant. You say the >elephant is like a wall because you examine 2000 years of interpretation >by believers who didn't question their assumptions. I've felt the wall, >and may not know its wrinkles as well as you do, but I have also felt the >snake-like trunk of interpretation without supernatural assumptions. Seems to me like you have felt the snake-like trunk of naturalistic assumptions. >2000 years of constant reinterpretation testify to the vagueness of the >Gospels. Some interpretations may view them as ambiguous, with geniuses >for authors, but like criticisms of art, the results are subjective and >vary with the phases of the moon. That's why there is so little >agreement among the thousands of Christian sects about specific meanings >of passages of the bible. The evidence supports the hypothesis that various sects exist due to a) differences of opinion on subjects that scripture is silent on, and b) suppression of this or that teaching that someone doesn't like. Sure, the NT is not totally unambiguous, but my God! the thing isn't an operator's manual for christianity. >My quote above is how the biblical parable of JC and Satan can be used >as a simple conspiracy theory explanation for (McCarthy-like) silencing >of skeptics. Since it has never been so used in the history of christianity, this argument is without merit as it stands. >Isn't that funny. Fraudulent psychics and their ilk follow this same >practice today. All of a sudden their "powers" won't work in front of >professional magicians and other skeptics. Perhaps Mike should read _Pilgrim's Regress_, paying particular attention to the passage on copies (in Zeitgeistheim). Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (04/14/85)
I have avoided (and will continue to avoid) getting into discussions about the plausibility of Christianity. The arguments somehow never seem to go anywhere. But I would at least like to ask those who are going to do so to try to take account of current scholarly views of the New Testament. Comments in the text, early church tradition, and the results of literary analysis all suggest that what you see in the NT was written down after the church had been in existence for several decades. There is no agreement on whether there are earlier written sources behind the Gospels. But whether the sources are written or verbal, the Gospels appear to be the endproduct of traditions developing in a number of different communities. It is simply not plausible that the NT itself should be a fraud. You may believe that the earliest Christian preachers were either mistaken or intentionally misrepresenting what happened. But it is not plausible that the NT should have been concocted by a cabal and then used to convince people to become Christians As to the idea of a cabal, maybe I am just more credulous than you, but I think conscious religious fraud is less common and easier to detect than you do. At least in modern times, questionable sects seem to have leaders who claim a direct pipeline to God, and who know all the answers. It is unusual to see any group (even sincere) whose basic documents show their leaders as having badly misunderstood the basic principles of the religion. The disciples are consistenly shown as not understanding why Jesus should die (e.g. Mt. 16:21-23). Their misunderstandings continue even into the period when they are leading the church (Acts 10:9-23, which is one of the accounts of the disagreements within the church about whether to accept non-Jews). The tensions within the early church are very clear in Acts and Paul's letters. Then we have the 4 Gospels themselves. While they do agree about many things, differing accounts are given even of such basic items as Jesus' birth and resurrection. Of course it is always possible that the leaders decided to be particularly subtle in their fraud, but that doesn't seem particularly plausible to me.per Also, on the importance of miracles. It is interesting that when Jesus was asked to do a miracle, he is recorded as saying "The only miracle you will be given is the miracle of Jonah" (Mt. 16:4 and parallels) The basic miracle in the book of Jonah is Jonah's conversion of Nineveh. (It is unfortunate that so many people's only exposure to this story is in 3rd grade Sunday school class, where the emphasis is on living in the belly of the fish. The book is a delightful piece of literature, with a rather pointed message about bigotry, and is well worth rereading as an adult.) Recall that much of Jesus' attention is given to bringing God's kingdom to people who have been shut out: people too poor to obey the strict ideals of the Pharisees, tax collectors, sinners, harlots, etc. A large fraction of his parables are told defending this role. In talking about the miracle of Jonah I think Jesus is saying that his major accomplishment is the conversion of people who were regarded as hopeless. (There are 4 different versions of this story. Mt. 12:38-42 gives an alternate interpretation, where this represents the resurrection. However scholars do not regard this as the original version.) Charles Hedrick, topaz!hedrick (unintentionally A.K.A. root@topaz)
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/15/85)
In article <4881@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > Obviously Mike has some source of historical information we are not party to. > I mean, it's just like you read in the _Inquirer_ (NOT Skeptical, the other > one). "Jesus: the true story!" "Brain-washed by an Apostle!" "The Gospels > were Written By Francis Bacon!" :-) At this late date in history, such > things represent pure speculation, all the more so considering Mike is > second-guessing text written 18 centuries ago, presumably from earlier > versions. Pardon me if I adopt the same air of certainty that Christians exhibit so readily. Now you have an idea of what I feel when I read your writings. At this late date in history your beliefs also represent pure speculation. At least my hypothesis requires fewer entities. My certainty is merely that my hypothesis is the best I've yet heard. It's inconvenient and a disadvantage in argument to phrase a hypothesis with the full set of caveats, assumptions, and polite kowtowing to other beliefs. If you wish to insist that I do that, allow me to request the same from you. > It also very interesting that he claims to know why God seems to have chosen > to do many fewer miracles these days. Is Satan writing exposes on the > Godhead? ("Menage-a-trois on the White Throne!" THe mind boggles at the > possibilities! :-)) I don't argue by ridicule much anymore. However I have been known to describe Joseph as a cuckold.... > >Consider the parable of the bind men and the elephant. You say the > >elephant is like a wall because you examine 2000 years of interpretation > >by believers who didn't question their assumptions. I've felt the wall, > >and may not know its wrinkles as well as you do, but I have also felt the > >snake-like trunk of interpretation without supernatural assumptions. > > Seems to me like you have felt the snake-like trunk of naturalistic > assumptions. (I wonder why I've never heard obscene "blind men and the elephant" jokes?) That's exactly the meaning I intended. Complete with snake and other allegorical allusions. (Mixing allegories-- a new crime like mixing metaphors? :-) Now, assume I mean more, and find 8 other lessons that I didn't intend. > The evidence supports the hypothesis that various sects exist due to a) > differences of opinion on subjects that scripture is silent on, and b) > suppression of this or that teaching that someone doesn't like. Sure, the > NT is not totally unambiguous, but my God! the thing isn't an operator's > manual for christianity. I'd be fascinated to hear your classification of Luther's numerous complaints into those two categories. It would make a fun and flame filled debate. > >My quote above is how the biblical parable of JC and Satan can be used > >as a simple conspiracy theory explanation for (McCarthy-like) silencing > >of skeptics. > > Since it has never been so used in the history of christianity, this > argument is without merit as it stands. You'd have to be exceedingly ignorant of Christian abuse of skeptics/heretics to be serious. I've been abused by analogies with this passage several times. > Perhaps Mike should read _Pilgrim's Regress_, paying particular attention to > the passage on copies (in Zeitgeistheim). I love the title. What's it about? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/15/85)
In article <1208@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: > I have avoided (and will continue to avoid) getting into discussions about > the plausibility of Christianity. The arguments somehow never seem to go > anywhere. But I would at least like to ask those who are going to do so to > try to take account of current scholarly views of the New Testament. > Comments in the text, early church tradition, and the results of literary > analysis all suggest that what you see in the NT was written down after the > church had been in existence for several decades. There is no agreement on > whether there are earlier written sources behind the Gospels. But whether > the sources are written or verbal, the Gospels appear to be the endproduct > of traditions developing in a number of different communities. It is simply > not plausible that the NT itself should be a fraud. You may believe that > the earliest Christian preachers were either mistaken or intentionally > misrepresenting what happened. But it is not plausible that the NT should > have been concocted by a cabal and then used to convince people to become > Christians Since you seem to be confused about where and when the NT could be the result of a cabal, I'll explain my hypothesis. JC and his disciples travelled together like a travelling revival show, working fake miracles and accepting contributions. They comprised the cabal, along with a number of camp followers too, like the various Marys.) After the crucifixion, someone was selected to play resurrected Jesus for a while. Then the cabal split up. When the cabal was together, everybody would know the stories, the same way the cast of a play knows all the lines. After the cabal split up, there would be little reason for any of the apostles to change the stories about JC. First, they were already proven popular. Second, they might conflict with the beliefs instilled in previous visits by JC or other apostles. Followers from outside the original cabal would likely be believers, and thus not change the stories. Eventually, the stories got written down. > As to the idea of a cabal, maybe I am just more credulous than you, but I > think conscious religious fraud is less common and easier to detect than you > do. At least in modern times, questionable sects seem to have leaders who > claim a direct pipeline to God, and who know all the answers. By this standard you would certainly reject Moses. He talked to God, and had the answers. He was a man of action, unlike the wishy-washy JC. In any event, modern sects operate in a different environment than existed at the time of Christ. The media, the expectations of Americans, the styles of teaching (much more direct today, with little allegory), and a host of other differences render your comparisons invallid. > It is unusual > to see any group (even sincere) whose basic documents show their leaders as > having badly misunderstood the basic principles of the religion. The You should read about the Mormons a bit more. Also, I think some Hindu texts qualify this way. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/23/85)
In article <471@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Pardon me if I adopt the same air of certainty that Christians exhibit >so readily. Now you have an idea of what I feel when I read your >writings. At this late date in history your beliefs also represent pure >speculation. At least my hypothesis requires fewer entities. Well, the obvious difference I see is that there is a long chain of analysis and examination (not to mention person-to-person witness) between me and the supposed origin of the church. You seem to be falling into the fundamentalist heresy, Mike; church tradition is also important in determining the nature of christian belief. >You'd have to be exceedingly ignorant of Christian abuse of >skeptics/heretics to be serious. I've been abused by analogies with >this passage several times. Well, I must apologize-- I'VE never heard the passage used that way. I suppose there are people out there who use this passage in that fashion. I can see how, in a certain way, the analogy to Satan holds-- but only in as much as Satan stands for material desires and impulses. The analogy that you are like Satan AND therefore evil is false. >> Perhaps Mike should read _Pilgrim's Regress_, paying particular attention >>> to the passage on copies (in Zeitgeistheim). >I love the title. What's it about? _Pilgrim's Regress_ is [gasp] another C. S. Lewis book, one of the two whose insights are especially good (_Screwtape_ is the other, for the curious). It's sort of a Gilbert and Sullivan version of the obvious Milton, except that it's more or less serious. Essentially, Lewis has taken Milton's plan and applied it to the modern forces against christianity. It must be remembered that Lewis is, in large part, talking about popularized versions of the great philosophers; this point is brought up indirectly in a couple of passages, but it is nevertheless easy to take his criticisms more broadly than he intended. (Somehow I think Rich will find Reason to be a bit too "objective"....) Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/24/85)
In article <5087@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > Well, the obvious difference I see is that there is a long chain of analysis > and examination (not to mention person-to-person witness) between me and the > supposed origin of the church. You seem to be falling into the > fundamentalist heresy, Mike; church tradition is also important in > determining the nature of christian belief. A longer game of "telephone": not only in accretions to the original interpretations, but also in the cultural assumptions that determine the interpretations. That's the good part of the fundamentalist heresy. The bad part is that they still take the bible seriously. > Well, I must apologize-- I'VE never heard the passage used that way. I > suppose there are people out there who use this passage in that fashion. I > can see how, in a certain way, the analogy to Satan holds-- but only in as > much as Satan stands for material desires and impulses. The analogy that you > are like Satan AND therefore evil is false. False analogies and other fallacies are still incredibly powerful, as any study of popular politics would show. And religions sweep a lot under the rug when they insist on faith rather than logic. Must we count the millions whose deaths were justified by falsehoods? > _Pilgrim's Regress_ is [gasp] another C. S. Lewis book, one of the two whose > insights are especially good (_Screwtape_ is the other, for the curious). In that case, I'll definitely read it. Screwtape is incredibly good: if Mere Christianity and others of its ilk were anywhere near as good, I might be persuaded. Thanks for the recommendation. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/25/85)
In article <502@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <5087@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >> Well, the obvious difference I see is that there is a long chain >> of analysis and examination (not to mention person-to-person witness) >> between me and the supposed origin of the church. You seem to be falling >> into the fundamentalist heresy, Mike; church tradition is also important >> in determining the nature of christian belief. >A longer game of "telephone": not only in accretions to the original >interpretations, but also in the cultural assumptions that determine >the interpretations. That's the good part of the fundamentalist heresy. >The bad part is that they still take the bible seriously. I don't know about that. I think their chief problem is not that they take the Bible seriously; it's that, rather than using both the techniques of modern textual analysis and the teachings passed on through the church, they reject both, clinging instead to a Pietistic view of the Bible that refuses to be informed by anything else. I see a similar problem with your analysis. When you compare the church to various cults which have followed, it seems to me that you neglect to take into account that these cults are essentially perversions of christianity. They take the forms that we see precisely because they were conceived in a society where christianity is in the air. It is not suprising to me that they resemble christianity in various aspects, but the fact that they are copied from christianity doesn't necessarily reflect upon the original. In point of fact, the so-called modernist trend in theology does in fact attempt to take cultural influences into account, as well as other facts relevant to the writing of the texts. >False analogies and other fallacies are still incredibly powerful, as any >study of popular politics would show. And religions sweep a lot under the >rug when they insist on faith rather than logic. Must we count the >millions whose deaths were justified by falsehoods? Well, in fact the Episcopal Church insists on neither. The Pietists have done a lot of damage by over-emphasizing faith to the exclusion of anything else. On the other hand, Logic (and even some less rigorous forms of systematic thought, such as the scientific method) are too weak to examine a lot of questions, even very simple ones. I insist that there is middle ground; the two are not dichotomous, nor are they the only dimensions. And besides, there is always the same problem; it is difficult to distinguish between a world in which there is no God, and a world with a God who is almost totally concealed. As I see the Christian faith, it posits a God who has deliberately chosen to set up this ambiguity. One would therefore expect an experimental test of his existence to fail, if treated rigorously. Science is therefore correct in rejecting the miraculous as explanitory. For precisely the same reason, it is not scientifically valid to say that you can demonstrate the non-existence of such a God, because you cannot set up a test which can distinguish between the two hypotheses. You have to choose on some other basis. Some, for instance, would put their faith in the power of simple explanations. It would then be reasonable, however, to look at these beliefs. Why are simpler explanations more valuable? What if one explanation, even if it cannot be scientifically verified, has vastly different implications than the other? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/09/85)
In article <5159@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > In article <502@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >A longer game of "telephone": not only in accretions to the original > >interpretations, but also in the cultural assumptions that determine > >the interpretations. That's the good part of the fundamentalist heresy. > >The bad part is that they still take the bible seriously. > > I don't know about that. I think their chief problem is not that they take > the Bible seriously; it's that, rather than using both the techniques of > modern textual analysis and the teachings passed on through the church, they > reject both, clinging instead to a Pietistic view of the Bible that refuses > to be informed by anything else. I think "teachings passed down through the Church" are exactly the sort of accretions that should be rejected and reformulated from scratch (if one assumes truth of the bible.) I agree that refusal to be informed by anything else is foolish. > I see a similar problem with your analysis. When you compare the church to > various cults which have followed, it seems to me that you neglect to take > into account that these cults are essentially perversions of christianity. > They take the forms that we see precisely because they were conceived in a > society where christianity is in the air. It is not suprising to me that > they resemble christianity in various aspects, but the fact that they are > copied from christianity doesn't necessarily reflect upon the original. For one who talks in other notes about the idea of "vertical miracles", it is surprising to me that you don't consider that maybe JC intended these cults to be the fruit of the seed he planted. You have no reason to expect that JC intended to found a static, monolithic church. > And besides, there is always the same problem; it is difficult to > distinguish between a world in which there is no God, and a world with a God > who is almost totally concealed. As I see the Christian faith, it posits a > God who has deliberately chosen to set up this ambiguity. One would > therefore expect an experimental test of his existence to fail, if treated > rigorously. Science is therefore correct in rejecting the miraculous as > explanitory. For precisely the same reason, it is not scientifically valid > to say that you can demonstrate the non-existence of such a God, because you > cannot set up a test which can distinguish between the two hypotheses. You > have to choose on some other basis. Some, for instance, would put their > faith in the power of simple explanations. It would then be reasonable, > however, to look at these beliefs. Why are simpler explanations more > valuable? What if one explanation, even if it cannot be scientifically > verified, has vastly different implications than the other? It's quite possible this is a universe with a concealed god. And that it is impossible to distinguish this. However, it's then also impossible to distinguish whether that god really wants what the Bible claims. For all I know, there might be a god out there who will damn me to eternal torment for believing the Bible. Because I cannot rationally find any way to choose a strategy for dealing with an unknown deity, it behooves me to not waste my efforts on any one strategy. Thus, agnosticism. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh