DescentBB

WillyP wrote:No, you are missing the entire point I was trying to make. I never said that Alan Bellows or the New York Police considered this as a false flag attempt. Only the results were simular. And since the perputraters were never caught, or even identified, who knows who or for what motive it might have been done. So, having just watched Zeitgeist it occurred to me that if 9/11 could be not what it seems, why not this incident also...

The Zeitgeist film is a propagandist hatchet job, not a reasoned examination of argument and counter-argument.

Oh, well, if you don't believe it's possible for people with great power to be greatly corrupted...

Of course it is possible, but why, in the absence of any evidence, would you give that possibility any credence, regardless of how remote it is. That is not reason, it is paranoia.

If it is possible, why dismiss it completely? Why do people scoff at the word 'conspiracy'?

From Google:
Definitions of conspiracy on the Web:

* a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
* a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
* a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
/Google

So, if an opinion based on something with no evidence is 'paranoia', what evidence do you have to say there was not a conspiracy? What evidence to show that great powerful leaders were not corrupted? Is there any evidence that proves it was not a false flag incident?

From Google:
Definitions of False flag on the Web:

* False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of another country other than your own. This was considered acceptable provided one lowered the false flag and raised the national flag before engaging in battle. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
/Google

There was no flag flown in either incident, but neither did the perpetrator claim credit. Whether they were designed to appear as though they were carried out by some other entity is the question.

Oh, another definition, this one from Wikipedia:
\"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.\" Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006.

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.
/Wikipedia

Of course it's propaganda. It's an attempt to influence your way of looking at the facts. Is everything stated in the movie a fact? I hardly think so. I am sure there are plenty of errors, intentional or otherwise. Personally, I think it does raise some good questions. But, if you prefer to believe only U.S. Government Approved propaganda, that's your business, I'm cool with that.

WillyP wrote:If it is possible, why dismiss it completely? Why do people scoff at the word 'conspiracy'? ...

... But, if you prefer to believe only U.S. Government Approved propaganda, that's your business, I'm cool with that.

I prefer to accept explanations that have at least some evidence to back them up, as opposed to wild, unfounded (though perhaps remotely possible) speculations.

I'm with Dissent on that point.

Of course conspiracy is theoretically possible. However, when the bulk of evidence runs contrary to that, and those who are claiming conspiracy are generally coming up with wild, implausible theories... yeah, I'm gonna be dubious.


The most vivid example of this to me was the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing in '95 (I lived there at the time).

I don't know how many of you were aware, but a state representative named Charles Key called for a grand jury investigation about a \"cover up\" regarding the facts of the bombing. At first, it was big news around Oklahoma City; the idea that maybe there were more bombers, or the government was even directly involved... pretty scary stuff, right?

Yeah, but then people started looking at the details of his argument. Key had basically compiled this wild, ridiculous theory about a \"government sting operation cover-up\" where even the local fire crews knew it was going to happen beforehand (\"that's why they got there so quickly!\"). ...Of course, none of his conspiracy theories proved out whatsoever.


Since then, every single conspiracy theory I've heard has had the same \"M.O.\":

- sensationalism (see: 9/11 conspiracy theories)

- false and misunderstood scientific statements (see: free energy conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories)

- supporters who are convinced that they are \"one of the chosen few who really know\" (see: new world order theories)

- nowadays: low-budget videos, using dramatic official/scientific-sounding dialogue, rushing illogically through multiple questionably-true points to a poorly-formed (and of course shocking) conclusion


There's no \"maybe it was wrong in places, but the conclusions are true\" in the video here. If the facts being claimed are wrong or even just partially incorrect (as Lothar showed this one is in multiple places), you can't take the conclusions seriously.

Some of the topics are worth discussing (I personally think the relationship between religions is interesting), but it has to be done correctly, looking at the evidence... not an internet video.


We're smarter than that here at the DBB, or at least we should be.

Perhaps you will find this a little less sensationalized: Loose Change

I certainly agree that it has to be looked at properly, evidence needs to be examined. I am glad that you are open minded about that at least, as I hold you in high regard.

Foil wrote:..Since then, every single conspiracy theory I've heard has had the same "M.O.":

- sensationalism (see: 9/11 conspiracy theories)

- false and misunderstood scientific statements (see: free energy conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories)

- supporters who are convinced that they are "one of the chosen few who really know" (see: new world order theories)

- nowadays: low-budget videos, using dramatic official/scientific-sounding dialogue, rushing illogically through multiple questionably-true points to a poorly-formed (and of course shocking) conclusion.

Very true. I also apply that thinking with the Intelligent Design conspiracy (modification of the rules of evidence), The latest Decree from the Pope, and the Kansas school board....

Bee

WillyP wrote:Perhaps you will find this a little less sensationalized: Loose Change

I certainly agree that it has to be looked at properly, evidence needs to be examined. I am glad that you are open minded about that at least, as I hold you in high regard.

I think we discussed that one, and its rebuttal.

Sorry, Testi, my bad. I hereby note that you were not fooled by the video's extremely bad propaganda.

I must agree with dissent, the film (as far as I watched it) is a propagandist hatchet job. It's not a good critical examination of the issues, it's a load of crap. It's not that it merely \"has flaws\" as Bettina states; it's that it's basically one flaw after another with almost no merit mixed in. The movie's \"careful research\" fell apart under even the most basic scrutiny. Basically the only interesting point from the first 37 minutes of the video that hasn't fallen apart is that MAYBE Gerald Massey or Samuel Birch will have something interesting to say about ancient Egyptian myths, but I'm probably out of luck if I want to dig deeper than their assertions and into direct translations.

I forgot to mention another of the movie's wrong claims: that the Bible's \"end times\" ideas come primarily from Matthew 28:20 and from the \"cartoonish\" depictions in Revelation. The idea is also repeated in 1 Thessalonians 4, 2 Thessalonians 2, 1 Corinthians 3, 2 Corinthians 5, and on and on and on (you may need to add (Yahweh) to the end of this link or click on the dictionary page it brings up.) It's not unique to the passage at the end of Matthew that talks about the end of the \"aeon\"; the idea is all over the Old and New Testaments.

By now, it should be clear the video is bogus through and through. As Foil said, some of the topics are worth discussing, but the video is not a good source of information or evidence. (Neither is Loose Change, though I loved Maddox's take.)

There are two ways to judge the movie. Count the flaws, then criticize them in minute detail, or look at the overall message being delivered.

In the first part, which is what interested me the most, it points out the metaphorical nature of the bible and the damage that it has done to the world we live in. Its poignant... 1 + 1 = 2, being brushed aside and replaced with the bible. Truth vs religion... Kansas and ID tried and thankfully lost but others will try again. In the news today, Turkey has gone Islamist, more death and destruction, more kidnappings, more hate.... Every day the world is becoming more religious and more dangerous.

The video may have tons of flaws but the overall message was crystal clear... at least to me.

Bettina

Just curious Lothar. Do you agree that the dates for Christ's birth and crucifixion were selected to match pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice and spring equinox? Not exactly damning evidence of a massive conspiracy just a note on the adaptability of the organization backing the followers. As far as I recall (I'm no expert) there is no mention of dates in the bible and the shepherds in the fields is an indication that it was not mid-winter.

Bet51987 wrote:There are two ways to judge the movie. Count the flaws, then criticize them in minute detail, or look at the overall message being delivered.

You'll notice that my approach was to begin by looking at the overall message being delivered, and then analyze the message as a whole. I didn't "count the flaws" while ignoring the overall point; I looked at the overall argument and researched and dealt with the ideas as they related to the core point being made.

I'm somewhat disturbed by the idea that you could have read my post and come away thinking I "counted the flaws" without looking at the overall message. Did you actually read what I wrote?

it points out the metaphorical nature of the bible and the damage that it has done to the world we live in.

It attempts to establish the metaphorical nature of the Bible, but it completely fails because virtually all of the supporting evidence is provably bogus, and the remaining supporting evidence is shaky and unsupported.

I know you want Christianity to be false, and you think ID and such are dangerous. But you do yourself a disservice by treating bad arguments against Christianity as if they were good arguments (much in the same way Christians do themselves a disservice by treating bad arguments against evolution as if they were good arguments.)

Ford Prefect wrote:Do you agree that the dates for Christ's birth and crucifixion were selected to match pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice and spring equinox?

As I said in my previous post, "We already know the Christmas and Easter dates are ripped directly from pagan festivals some time after the formation of Christianity." There is no date given for Jesus' birth in the Bible, and the presence of shepherds suggests it wasn't the dead of winter. Most of the better arguments I've heard place Jesus' birth in autumn, possibly September or October (particularly counting from the conception of John the Baptist, which is assumed to have happened right after Pentecost.) His date of death corresponds to Passover, which is generally in April and can be calculated in any given year.

I don't think there's any particular significance to the fact that the winter solstice and spring equinox were the two hijacked festivals. The dates roughly fall into the same part of the year to Jesus' actual birth and death (and Christmas is within a few weeks of Epiphany, which was another of the early celebrations of Jesus' birth), which suggests to me they just grabbed the nearest big pagan festivals and renamed them. And yes, the hijacking of those festivals does demonstrate the church's willingness to do silly things, especially when the church became a political organization/tool.

Easter is pretty close. But it would more accurately follow the Passover which it \"hovers\" around.

(..but that's not what this discussion is about. )

Bet51987 wrote:The video may have tons of flaws but the overall message was crystal clear... at least to me.

There can be cases where the overall message is correct, but the messenger uses flawed logic or information to tell it. This isn't one of those cases.

The overall message depended completely on the information and logic presented. However, those were flawed in many areas, so we can't put any confidence in the message, at least based on that information.

isn't that how New Math worked?

Duper wrote:isn't that how New Math worked?

Don't get me started on the misconceptions about the reform in Mathematical education in the '60s.

Lothar: How many of the New Testament books are transcribed from documents dating to the life of Jesus and are believed to be in the hand of the credited author?

Lothar wrote:...I'm somewhat disturbed by the idea that you could have read my post and come away thinking I "counted the flaws" without looking at the overall message. Did you actually read what I wrote?

...I know you want Christianity to be false, and you think ID and such are dangerous.

No, I didn't read your entire post as you didn't view the entire video. "The secret to being boring is to say everything"...voltaire.

Your comment about me wanting to see Christianity fail is only partly true.... Unless Christianity, or any other religion can support the God hypothesis then it is already false and without any proof, reliable observations, testable predictions that can be tested and observed, it cannot even be called a hypothesis. Its just a book of stories that people in church wish upon and I see it.

With that said, I just have to match up what I see in the world and what I saw in the video and its easy to spot the truths that are important. However, I still would not want Christianity to fail for what I feel is its true core value. I just want to push it back into the homes and churches and make it personal like it should be. When the President of the U.S. invokes God in his speeches, and when the Boards of Education try to inject ID into schools, and when people vote for a candidate based on the candidates religious views, then it becomes highly dangerous....and in that respect, I hope it fails.

Both you and Foil have seen parts of the video but you "didn't get" the message being delivered because its words don't agree with the "proof" in your book. I saw the flaws in the interpretations but not in the overall theme.

Bettina

Ford, I have to say, I'm really enjoying your approach here. Rather than trying to defend the garbage in the movie, you're searching out other worthwhile information and asking valid and reasonable questions. I appreciate that.

Ford Prefect wrote:How many of the New Testament books are transcribed from documents dating to the life of Jesus and are believed to be in the hand of the credited author?

We don't have any of the originals (from within a generation of Jesus' death; some of His followers did outlive Him by a fair bit.)

The oldest manuscript we have is a small papyrus fragment (P52), dated to between 125 AD and 160 AD, which contains a few fragments of sentences from John 18. The oldest complete books we have are from the Chester Beatty collection, which include substantial portions of many of Paul's writings and Hebrews (dated about 200 AD) and large chunks of the Gospels and Acts from perhaps 250 AD. The Bodmer papyri are also significant, covering most of Luke and John (as well as parts of the Iliad) and dating to as early as 200 AD. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, dated to 330-350 AD. (A bit of googlefoo took me to this page. I haven't yet read through the whole book it's from, but it looks promising.)

One of the most interesting things to me is that, due to the sheer number of New Testament manuscripts and the broad geographic area they cover, we can use evolutionary methods to trace the variations between manuscripts. This means, among other things, we actually have a really good idea as to when, where, and how certain groups tried to manipulate the text ("the church's willingness to do silly things"; note that there has NEVER been any central authority for the whole church.) Based on the number and type of variations, as well as the geographic spread of the texts, I feel confident in saying we really can reconstruct the original with a large degree of certainty, and date most of the NT to within a generation of Jesus' death. This is such a huge field of scholarship, I fear I can't even begin to do it justice in a forum post, but I hope I've given you a good idea of what's out there.

Bettina, I didn't view the entire video, but I did view the relevant part for what's being discussed here (the first 37 minutes.) It's clear you can't say the same about my post, as you can't even remotely identify the arguments I've made.

I detailed the video's arguments quite clearly in part 1 of my monster post:

Lothar wrote:In short, this section of the movie makes four separate arguments:
1) Moses is not a historical figure, but a mythological figure copied from others
2) Jesus is not a historical figure, but a mythological sun god copied from others
3) Moses and Jesus signify the changing of the ages from Taurus to Ares to Pisces
4) The New Testament was written in order to allow for control

You seem to be focusing entirely on your own argument, that Christianity is "already false and without any proof", and pretending that's the argument the video made. It's not. The video made the four specific arguments above. It didn't say Christianity is "without proof", as you have; it said that Jesus and Moses were copied from other specific figures, that they signify astrological ages, and that the NT was written by a specific group with specific goals they claim to have identified. The problem with the video was not that it doesn't agree with the "proof" in my book, but that its actual claims were bogus -- the patterns it claims are in the Bible are bad; the other religious myths it talks about aren't actually what those other religious myths say; even the astronomy was wrong.

You're pretending the video's specific claims are irrelevant because you agree with an extremely vague abstraction/modification of what it says. That accomplishes exactly two things: first, it makes you look silly, and second, it damages the message you're trying to get across. If you want to argue that Christianity is dangerous, or that public religion in general is dangerous, argue that. But don't be so foolish as to try to use this video as backup or to say the video was good.

Lothar wrote:Bettina, I didn't view the entire video, but I did view the relevant part for what's being discussed here (the first 37 minutes.) It's clear you can't say the same about my post, as you can't even remotely identify the arguments I've made.

I detailed the video's arguments quite clearly in part 1 of my monster post:

Lothar wrote:In short, this section of the movie makes four separate arguments:
1) Moses is not a historical figure, but a mythological figure copied from others
2) Jesus is not a historical figure, but a mythological sun god copied from others
3) Moses and Jesus signify the changing of the ages from Taurus to Ares to Pisces
4) The New Testament was written in order to allow for control

You seem to be focusing entirely on your own argument, that Christianity is "already false and without any proof", and pretending that's the argument the video made. It's not. The video made the four specific arguments above. It didn't say Christianity is "without proof", as you have; it said that Jesus and Moses were copied from other specific figures, that they signify astrological ages, and that the NT was written by a specific group with specific goals they claim to have identified. The problem with the video was not that it doesn't agree with the "proof" in my book, but that its actual claims were bogus -- the patterns it claims are in the Bible are bad; the other religious myths it talks about aren't actually what those other religious myths say; even the astronomy was wrong.

You're pretending the video's specific claims are irrelevant because you agree with an extremely vague abstraction/modification of what it says. That accomplishes exactly two things: first, it makes you look silly, and second, it damages the message you're trying to get across. If you want to argue that Christianity is dangerous, or that public religion in general is dangerous, argue that. But don't be so foolish as to try to use this video as backup or to say the video was good.

Blues OP.."Talks about Religion, Wars, Economic Depression, Terrorism and how they are tied together"

To me the video was good. Would you rather I lie and say it wasn't? I don't have to pretend I liked it... I really did like it and I got the message despite its flaws. Did you understand the meaning where the mathematical works were pushed aside by the bible?

Your very skilled at pointing out biblical flaws and replacing them with what the church has taught you but how does it change what the OP was trying to get across.... Am I the only silly person here who got the message the video was intending to present? I hope not.

Bee

Thanks Lothar. I'm sorry for always pestering you for academic answers but you and Drakona are easily the most knowledgeable posters here on the subject. And I must say the least dogmatic.
I had always thought that we did not have any actual writings of the apostles and the others in the New Testament I just wanted to confirm that before making any statement that would make me look more foolish than usual.
I think the vast bulk of the first section of the Zeitgeist film was total nonsense. A quick search of the internet found none of their claims for the Myth of Horis and as you point out they are back dating a lot of claimed crossovers.
That said I think it is reasonable to believe that there has been some mythologising of the story of the life of Jesus. A gap of some hundreds of years between events and the re-telling of events is bound to generate embellishments. The fact that there are multiple references to a myth do not make it true. Witness the multiple references to the couple in the car and the murderer with the hook you can find nowadays. So how much of what is in the New Testament is an accurate account of real events and how much is story telling to support a fledgling religion I don't suppose we will ever know.
But co-opting a couple of festival dates and using the number 12 are hardly a case for parallels between such vastly different cultures divided by such long time periods. A weak waste of time in my opinion,
And speaking of time the whole segment could have been cut by about two thirds by eliminating those annoying musical and light show intervals that did nothing for the narrative. Smoke less pot and do more fact checking dude.

Ford Prefect wrote:A weak waste of time in my opinion,
And speaking of time the whole segment could have been cut by about two thirds by eliminating those annoying musical and light show intervals that did nothing for the narrative.

A subliminal conditioning method .... hmm, I think there's a conspiracy afoot.

Subliminal messaging!! I didn't think of that! Maybe I've been contaminated by viewing them. That's it I'm off to the nearest Church of Scientology for a good brain washing to clear things out.

I can suggest several alcoholic beverages that are real good at washing out your brain!

Bettina wrote:To me the video was good. Would you rather I lie and say it wasn't?

Nope. I'd rather you applied critical thinking skills, thereby recognizing that (the first 37 minutes of) the movie is not in fact "good" in any sense of the word, but rather, total crap (Ford made some great comments about this.) I don't want you to lie to me, but I also don't want you to hold a silly view. Listen to Ford's wisdom on the subject.

You talk about "the message the movie was intended to present" as if the details are irrelevant. You talk about it as though the movie said "religions like Christianity are dangerous" and didn't spend its first thirty-seven minutes making DETAILED arguments about Jesus and Moses being derived from other figures and the Bible telling an astrological story. It's silly to say something is "good" because you agree with an abstract modification of what it says even though all of its details are wrong. (That'd be like me saying I think young-earth creationism is "good" because I agree God exists even though I think virtually every detail of YEC is bogus.)

Did you understand the meaning where the mathematical works were pushed aside by the bible?

I didn't see such claims being made in the first 37 minutes of the movie. Perhaps you can describe the claim in detail, at which point I can respond to it.

Your very skilled at pointing out biblical flaws and replacing them with what the church has taught you

What the church has taught me? HAH! If I ever find a church with that kind of teaching, I'll move across the world for it. The things I post aren't "what my church taught me", they're conclusions my wife and I came to through in-depth research and analysis (things we're both very, very good at.)

You seem to make the mistake of thinking my skills exist in a vacuum, as if I got to be "very skilled" by magic and I'm therefore an unopposeable juggernaut you have to avoid and dodge. The reality is, my skills came through hard work and study, and you're capable of doing the same. You might have a lot to contribute if you'd actually take my arguments head-on instead of ignoring or dodging them.

Ford Prefect wrote:I'm sorry for always pestering you for academic answers...

No problem... I actually really enjoy it. I love doing research and analysis, and I love having people ask me real and difficult questions that require serious thought.

I think it is reasonable to believe that there has been some mythologising of the story of the life of Jesus. A gap of some hundreds of years between events and the re-telling of events is bound to generate embellishments. The fact that there are multiple references to a myth do not make it true.

That's a reasonable and possible take, though I want to nit-pick a couple of things.

The gap isn't "hundreds of years between events and re-telling of events", it's "about a hundred years between events and the earliest still-existing documented re-telling."

One of the things the many, many references do for us is they give us a clear idea of how (and how quickly) the story actually did change over time. We can compare copies of John from 200 AD in Egypt to copies of John from 400 AD in Italy and see how many changes there were over the span of 200 years and however many miles that is. We know how far the manuscripts spread by what era, what changes different manuscripts have in common, and how many "copying generations" passed between the original and various existing copies. This strongly suggests the original authorship dates of the whole NT -- of the "truly original retelling" -- were well before 100 AD. It would be very unlikely for the writings to have been produced in, say, 160 AD and then to have spread as broadly and accumulated the number of versional differences they did by 200 AD (especially given the rate at which versional differences accumulated after 200 AD.) Possible, but highly unlikely.

One of the most date-suggestive things to me is the fact that none of the NT writings reference the actual fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I have a hard time believing they'd write these detailed stories about Jesus and what He said about Jerusalem and the temple, and then not mention (even in passing) the destruction of the Second Temple. The Gospel writers as well as Paul thought it was very important to point out fulfilled prophecy, so I seriously doubt they'd have held back from saying "Jesus said the temple would be destroyed, and look, it was!" Again, it's possible, but unlikely.

Could the stories be mythologized? Sure; such a thing can happen even within the first generation (though I don't believe it did.) Is it likely the mythologizing happened hundreds of years later? Nope; it's far more likely that what we have on paper today reasonably corresponds to writings from before 70 AD.

Lothar wrote:You might have a lot to contribute if you'd actually take my arguments head-on instead of ignoring or dodging them.

I can't go on arguing with you because you view your biblical works, studies, and skills as truth and I view them as total myth. Since we have nothing in common, whats the point?

I liked the video because of the reasons I already stated.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on ...

Bee

can't = won't! hmm ......

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on ...

Bee

can't = won't! hmm ......

Nope. To say I "won't" implies I have an answer but refuse to give it. I used "can't" because scriptures, to me, are of a mythical nature so no matter what I say, I will be unable to change the outcome.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:You might have a lot to contribute if you'd actually take my arguments head-on instead of ignoring or dodging them.

I can't go on arguing with you because you view your biblical works, studies, and skills as truth and I view them as total myth. Since we have nothing in common, whats the point?

I understand that you believe the spiritual claims of the Bible to be myth. However, that doesn't prevent you from arguing historical and/or non-spiritual Biblically-related data (which is what the above arguments mostly involve).

Don't give up so easy, Bet.

One of the most date-suggestive things to me is the fact that none of the NT writings reference the actual fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I have a hard time believing they'd write these detailed stories about Jesus and what He said about Jerusalem and the temple, and then not mention (even in passing) the destruction of the Second Temple. The Gospel writers as well as Paul thought it was very important to point out fulfilled prophecy, so I seriously doubt they'd have held back from saying \"Jesus said the temple would be destroyed, and look, it was!\" Again, it's possible, but unlikely.

It is also quite possible that the prophecy was back dated into the account by the author/transcriber. It may have been 2000 years ago but I think they were smart enough to understand time lines in narratives then.
All this is of course speculation. You, Lothar, approach it from a position of belief in the divinity of Jesus where others are looking for things that might support their opposing positions. This Zeitgeist segment is an example of that. If you agree with the sentiments then you enjoy the presentation if you disagree then the flaws are what you see.

Bet51987 wrote:

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on ...

Bee

can't = won't! hmm ......

Nope. To say I "won't" implies I have an answer but refuse to give it.

Won't = "will not"
Can't = "can not"

won't is a decision, irregardless of the rational.

Can't indicates the absolute inability to "do".

when it comes to responding, it's always a matter of choice. If "can't" were the case, the circumstances would be something like you were dead or you no longer had access to a computer or the internet to post.

Duper wrote:irregardless

... is not a word

Sorry, just one of my pet peeves.

Let the banter continue!

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on arguing with you because you view your biblical works, studies, and skills as truth and I view them as total myth.

So my view of the Bible makes you completely and utterly incapable of analyzing the claims this movie makes about astronomy and Egyptian mythology? My view of the Bible's message makes you completely incapable of looking at the physical history of the manuscripts in question? My view of the Bible makes you utterly incapable of doing research and analysis? Because I don't agree with you about the content of the Bible, we have "nothing in common" and therefore you can't pursue truth if I'm involved in the discussion?

Very little of what I've said in this thread depends on the "mythical" or "spiritual" qualities of scripture. You don't need to believe the Bible is true to be able to examine the claim that Jesus and Moses were copied from earlier myths. You don't need to believe the Bible is true to examine the claim that Sirius and Orion's belt line up in a certain way. You don't need to believe the Bible is true to recognize that the claim about the water carrier in Luke 22:10 doesn't fit with the narrative in Luke 22:7-13. You don't need to believe the Bible to recognize the weakness of the claim that it was written by the Gnostics. Look at the way Ford Prefect has approached this discussion, and compare his approach with the lame excuses you've made.

When Drakona was your age, she was busy kicking butt in discussions like this. Whether or not she had any common beliefs with the people she was discussing things with, she understood how to do research, to analyze arguments, to recognize the weakness of her own positions and others' positions, and to develop better ideas as time went on. She mastered the fine art of thinking. You've mastered the fine art of making excuses. You're capable of more, so expect me to keep pushing you. I don't want you to lie, I just want you to replace your lame excuses and lame arguments with good analysis and worthwhile ideas.

Ford Prefect wrote:

One of the most date-suggestive things to me is the fact that none of the NT writings reference the actual fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD....

It is also quite possible that the prophecy was back dated into the account by the author/transcriber.

Of course it's possible that the prophecy itself was written after the fact... but that misses the point I was making. What I find unlikely is that, if major parts of the NT were written "hundreds of years later", nobody would've written anything about the temple being destroyed other than the prophecy. Even aside from Jesus' words, the destruction of the temple would be such a significant event you'd expect it to be referenced in at least a few of the letters if they were written after 70 AD (which, by the way, would be perfectly acceptable from a Christian standpoint -- it's not as though Paul's writings would suddenly become un-cool if they'd been written 10 years later.) The number and spread of the manuscripts, and their variations, suggest an authorship date of before 100 AD; the lack of any mention of the destruction of the temple except for the prophecy suggests an authorship date of before 70 AD for virtually the entire New Testament (with a possible exception for the insertion and back-dating of the prophecy itself.) I agree, this is speculation, but I think it's reasonable speculation.

My belief in the divinity of Jesus is irrelevant for that particular statement. I could believe in the divinity of Jesus just as easily if the gospels and the epistles were first written down in 80 AD or 150 AD as if they were written within a year of Jesus' death. And a non-Christian could just as easily believe the stories were exaggerated or mythologized if they were first written in 50 AD as if they were written in 200 AD. So let's all have the maturity to approach the issue with a degree of scholarship and reason. That's what the Zeitgeist clip was really missing.

Herculosis wrote:

Duper wrote:irregardless

... is not a word

Sorry, just one of my pet peeves.

Let the banter continue!

Then I suggest you read This

Ah. I think I see the basis of the misunderstanding Lothar. I was thinking of a situation where the events were deliberately omitted because the prophecy was included. Ensuring that no events after the supposed date of authorship were referenced would be a basic if you were trying to pass off a document as older than it really was. Sneakier things have been done in the name of promoting a religion.
Not an accusation as I have no evidence just a possibility.

Thanks for some excellent analysis Lothar, that took a LOT of work, and we appreciate the time and effort.

And in particular:

Lothar wrote:I know you want Christianity to be false, and you think ID and such are dangerous. But you do yourself a disservice by treating bad arguments against Christianity as if they were good arguments (much in the same way Christians do themselves a disservice by treating bad arguments against evolution as if they were good arguments.)

THANK YOU for pointing this out. <sigh>
Everyone KNOWS that I like ID as a theory. But one of the reasons ID gets a bad rep is because so many Christians jump behind really bad "creation science" garbage, just because it agrees with what they wanted to hear. If the same wild speculation and insanely weak arguments had been thrown up AGAINST Christianity, we would have rejected them out of hand, and rightly so. But when someone starts saying "The depth of the moon dust proves the moon is only a few thousand years old", young earth creationist jump on the band wagon and shout hurrah!. <big sigh>

You do not strengthen your cause when you support weak, or especially obviously bogus arguments, just because they support your theory. You actually get MORE respect from your opponents when you are willing to reject arguments favorable to your cause because they do not have adequate support.

Kilarin wrote:...And in particular:

Lothar wrote:I know you want Christianity to be false, and you think ID and such are dangerous. But you do yourself a disservice by treating bad arguments against Christianity as if they were good arguments (much in the same way Christians do themselves a disservice by treating bad arguments against evolution as if they were good arguments.)

THANK YOU for pointing this out. <sigh>

Drakona claims evolution is implausable, Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him but allows him to witness His miracles, and you stand on the pulpit applauding them as if I'm the one thats silly?

I'm glad I'm not wrapped to the point of blindness that I would have missed the meaning of the first part of that video.

Have a nice day...

Bettina

dbl post

kudos Bee. good to see that the ridiculously long post did not sway you...quite laughable isn't it?

You're on the right track kid.

Ford Prefect wrote:I was thinking of a situation where the events were deliberately omitted because the prophecy was included.... trying to pass off a document as older than it really was.

The difference between "this was written a few years before the fall of Jerusalem" and "this was written a few years after" is tiny if they were trying to establish a fictional age of documents that were actually written much later. It's such a tiny gain, I have trouble seeing it as worthwhile in comparison to "in a previous letter we wrote about Jesus saying the temple would be destroyed, and now we're writing to say it has come to pass." It would be incredibly sneaky, but pretty pointless sneakitude, all things considered. Pretending all but a few of the letters were written before, and then one or two were written by old-man Paul just after the fall of Jerusalem, would IMO be a much more effective deception. Again, it's possible, but it seems silly and counterproductive.

Zuruck wrote:good to see that the ridiculously long post did not sway you...quite laughable isn't it?

Bettina, getting props from Zuruck is about the worst insult I can imagine.

The simple fact is, if you accept bad arguments -- and that video was one bad argument after another -- you do yourself no favors. When you refuse to separate the good arguments on your side from the bad ones, you end up being taken about as seriously as Zuruck is.

You're just as silly as every creationist I've ever met -- you accept arguments that require just as much bad science and bad reasoning and bad logic and historical revisionism. And you dodge and avoid just as much as every creationist I've ever met -- you continue to say the movie was good while ignoring the fact that every argument it made fell apart under scrutiny, and you try to change the subject when I keep pressing you on that point. You're capable of better! Learn to be critical, not only of the arguments you disagree with, but of the ones you agree with.