mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/15/84)
After one small exchange with Gary Samuelson, I can see I'm going to have to explain some basic ideas about argument, the burden of proof, and my particular ideas about the origin of the bible. He writes: > Consistent explanations do not constitute evidence. Are you willing > to assert that one of your scenarios correctly depicts what in fact > did happen, so that I could ask for your evidence? I'm sure you > can invent scenarios faster than I can refute them, but so what? I agree 100% with Gary's first sentence above. Let's assume for a moment that Gary and I both have access to the same evidence, consisting solely of certain writings. We both come up with consistent explanations for the evidence that differ extensively. The source of the difference is the assumptions we are required to make for our explanations. If each explanation explains all the evidence, the only way we can decide between the two is by comparing the assumptions. I claim that my explanation for the bible encompasses all the evidence anyone elses does, and has a more reasonable set of assumptions. (I will explain particulars further on.) > By the way, have you ever thought about what convinced the people > living in the first century? Why do you suppose they were so > easily persuaded by such an outlandish tale? (I told you I am > not an expert on debate; please don't take the above as rhetorical > questions.) In particular, do you think that people were significantly > more gullible then than now? The ancient Greeks first identified characteristics of arguments that convince people. Thus I'm pretty confident that people were as gullible in biblical times as they are now. In order to suppose that people may have been fooled by the authors of the bible, I need only observe that people are fooled frequently today. Need I list some of the zillions of other mutually exclusive beliefs comparable to christianity? Such as Moslems, Mormons, Krishnas, etc? > "Maybe this" and "maybe that;" I wish you would just come out and > say what you think really happened and present the evidence for > whatever you believe. > ... > I surmise that your position is that the Bible as a whole and the gospels > in particular are fiction, like modern fantasy writing. If this is > indeed your belief, what evidence do you base this belief on? Who did > it? When? Why? How did it become so widely accepted? > ... > All you have said boils down to this: You aren't convinced. All right, > but if you haven't come to a conclusion about what really happened, then > I suggest that you haven't dealt with the issue. You have decided that > no resurrection took place; that the Bible is largely a fabrication; > and that Christianity in general is a fraud; but on what grounds? The evidence I use is the same that you use: known documents dating to near the period of the bible, and the bible. Minimal assumptions you are making are that the authors are reporting the truth and that the miracles occurred. All I need to assume is that the authors are not telling the truth: then no miracles are required. The old testament is the result of generations of patriarchs much like the Ayutollahs (sp?) of today. In their struggle to maintain power, they claim to talk with god, to be descended from very important people, and that their people are the chosen of god. There is no shortage of religious despots who make identical claims today. Historically, geneologies have been frequently made up for important people showing them to be related to whomever it's politically expedient to be related to. People are always willing to believe that they're better than others: tell them they're god's chosen and they'll kill for you. What patriarch would turn down an opportunity to claim god directs his actions? It's much harder for rival factions to oppose god too. The new testament is largely the result of a travelling preacher, much as in the non-fiction movie Marjoe. Faith healings could be staged occaisionally, and the big miracles always could have occurred in a previous town. The apostles were the shills, the rumor spreaders, provided testimony, etc. Like any other travelling show, they would perfect their stories so that they appealed to the audience, and get them straight so that they all agreed. The resurrection was very appealing to the audience: JC thumbing his nose at the Roman oppressors. Great story. Perhaps for a while they paraded someone dressed up as JC until the heat was turned on: then conveniently JC was assumed to heaven. Witnesses? It's trivial to say 500 saw JC in the last town. Even if it wasn't JC, or even if there wasn't any appearence. And why should the apostles quit after the death of JC? Why let someone else pick up all those followers, when they can continue to provide a nice living? Sure it's risky, but history is full of people who gambled lives for power/riches/authority/etc. In conclusion, there is no need for anything but normal human greed, deceit, and ambition to adequately explain everything known about the bible and other religions. In order to suppose they are true, you need to postulate miracles and other unnecessary assumptions. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/17/84)
> Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > The new testament is largely the result of a travelling preacher, much as > in the non-fiction movie Marjoe. Faith healings could be staged > occaisionally, and the big miracles always could have occurred in a previous > town. The apostles were the shills, the rumor spreaders, provided testimony, > etc. Like any other travelling show, they would perfect their stories so > that they appealed to the audience, and get them straight so that they all > agreed. The resurrection was very appealing to the audience: JC thumbing > his nose at the Roman oppressors. Great story. Perhaps for a while they > paraded someone dressed up as JC until the heat was turned on: then > conveniently JC was assumed to heaven. Witnesses? It's trivial to say 500 > saw JC in the last town. Even if it wasn't JC, or even if there wasn't any > appearence. And why should the apostles quit after the death of JC? Why > let someone else pick up all those followers, when they can continue to > provide a nice living? Sure it's risky, but history is full of people who > gambled lives for power/riches/authority/etc. "Perfect[ing] their stories"? Given a choice between 'fessing up and being thrown to the lions, how many would take the lions? "Nice living"? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!! The job description Paul gives in II Corinthians 11 is hardly "nice living." Many a man will die for what he believes to be true - no man will die for what he knows is a lie. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/19/84)
> "Perfect[ing] their stories"? Given a choice between 'fessing up and > being thrown to the lions, how many would take the lions? > "Nice living"? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!! The job description Paul > gives in II Corinthians 11 is hardly "nice living." > > Many a man will die for what he believes to be true - > no man will die for what he knows is a lie. > -- > The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford Come now. You can do better than this pathetic excuse for an argument. People thrown to the lions may have "fessed up"-- record keeping in that era was notoriously poor. {:-)} And who would believe stories of confessions? Or give confessions under duress any credence? Or add them to the Bible? Paul's "job description" could as easily be an exaggeration as any politician's claims to simple lifestyles. It could also serve as a "hard luck story", to encourage donations, sympathy, etc. Suffering convinces people, even if it is involuntary or fictional. People seldom have a choice of whether to die or not for a lie. However, they frequently do gamble. And it takes little knowledge of history to think of other founders of religious sects who were killed when they finally were overcome temporally and physically. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/19/84)
Larry brings some excellent information in providing the specific Roman leader who led the book burnings. I think it is appropriate to add here that the burned books would have been N'tzarim/-P Hebrew or Aramaic while the new Constantine copies would have been Christian greek (or else their heads would have rolled).