Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (16481)	3/1/2004 10:17:12 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Oh my GOD that is tiresome... Where the hell is FRED!!! Probably singing in the forest dancing around a campfire drinking Mexican beer and eating smokies... God help us all!!!

To: briskit who wrote (16481)	3/2/2004 11:34:14 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Once again, I will repeat: "I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. The site intended to show a (misplaced) basis for certain gospel assertions. We are not disputing the historicity of gospel writings; we are relating them to other historical documents. The point is that the gospel writings depend from prior material rather than from historical fact. That anyone with any semblance of an open mind could be confused on this account beggars belief. Especially when it is considered that history is ABSOLUTELT SILENT on these "events". Occam's razor comes into play here. Nobody who knew Jesus wrote about Jesus...because Jesus is a composite invention. And why would a true seeker of truth choose Jesus over Mohammed...or over a thousand other myths? WHY? Just because of your parents and your culture or the happenstance of birth and erudition? Now as to the question of whether Matthew or Mark came first, I suspect that question is less important to our general interest than the question of the Christian myths. As to the Talmud of Jimmanuel, I am not at all disturbed by the allusions to God men, Superior Beings, and such. This is, after all, consistent with all religions and their mythic roots. The flying wheels of the bible, the Gods mating with earth women, the conference with Satan and the other God-men...and so forth. So, while I appreciate some of your scorn for the Talmud of Jmmanuel (and I confess I finds it less than satisfying as "history), I nevertheless find such skepticism to be rather startling when juxtaposed with your acceptance of biblical schizophrenia, talking donkeys, flying chariots (pulled by fire horses), cherubims, etc. I regret posting that link. The point was to offer a different point of view on mythical primacy. It side-tracked into an analysis of the myths, themselves...and who wrote them and why. Naturally, I would not be a modern person if I did not believe in the possibility of space travel--LOL! But I will distance myself from any particular support for such as my link referenced. You are quite right: it is far too similar to biblical myth to justify a rational presentation or to use to prove even minor points. But one does wonder at your rationality as involving this matter as contrasted with your defense of biblical mythology from a slightly different source where the stories are far more outrageous and the linkage to real events entirely absent. Yes...one wonders.